Nader sues US Dems, others, in Maine court

[MaineDem]

Source: Portland Press Herald/AP

BANGOR -- Former independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is suing the Democratic National Committee and other groups in a Maine state court over the 2004 election.

Nader claims the Democratic Party, the campaign of 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry and others used illegal and malicious tactics to try to keep him off the ballot in Maine and more than a dozen other states.

The Bangor Daily News says the lawsuit was filed in Washington County Superior Court because the legal window to file a complaint remains open and Maine was one of the places where Democratic Party officials allegedly worked to keep Nader off the ballot.

Read more: http://updates.mainetoday.com/updates/nader-sues-us-dems-others-in-maine-court

[rayofreason]

1. What a load of self-absorbed nonsense. n/t

[defendandprotect]

5. Right, defending third parties' rights to be on ballots is "self-absored nonsense" . . !!!

Wow --

When you give up staring at your navel consider that as long as the only competitition

the Democratic Party has is from the neo-fascist GOP, the Democratic Party and its

selection of candidates will continue to move to the right.

Is that what you want?

You don't have to vote for third parties --

but it's like unions -- you don't have to join one, but they do represent

a floor under wages and a concept of labor owning their own work.

Same thing with third parties -- they provide some real competitition for the

two party tyranny we're suffering -- and their participation in debates allows us

to hear other ideas, other concepts -- and often some very sane responses to solving

the many insanities we suffer from government led by the one party with two wings!!

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. +1

[rayofreason]

22. Nader is self-absorbed...

...and he made it on to many ballots in 2000 (remember that???) as well as in 2004. With zero chance of success.

Kerry did not use illegal methods to keep Nader off the Maine ballot. He won the popular vote handily with 53.57% to 44.58%. Nader got 1.1%, the Green candidate got 0.4% and the Libertarian got 0.3%.

The only obstacle to 3rd parties is the winner-take-all system, and it is a good thing in my view. It is well known that winner-take-all districts result in 2-party systems, whereas proportional representation results in a large number of small parties, as any well-educated PoliSci major can tell you. Proportional representation was the downfall of the French 3rd Republic and Weimar Germany, and it gives huge power to parties like Shas in Israel, much to the distress of secular Jews. Just think about a small religious party with much more power than the current religious right influencing social policy here in the US if we had a proportional/parliamentary system! Again, see the case of Israel.

Third parties can arise in a winner-take-all if there is the need, like with the Republican Party in the 1850s or the rise of Labour in the UK in the 1920s. How is that for navel-gazing? So perhaps you can drop your holier-than-thou attitude and deal with the world as it is, as well as understanding some basic facts about political science. That goes as well for your use of the term "neo-fascist" since I suspect you have no clue as to what Fascism as a political movement really was, where it came from, and how it differs from the traditional conservative (monarchical/aristocratic) and liberal (individualist/laissez-faire) European political stances.

[defendandprotect]

41. There are no obstacles to third parties . . . ????

:evilgrin:


:eyes:


:rofl:

[rayofreason]

72. Plenty of obstacles.

Winner take all districts result in 2-party systems, so a third party can arise only when there is a huge issue. If successful, the 3rd party eclipses one of the old parties and you end up with 2 parties. Small groups that cannot command a large fraction of supporters get absorbed into one of the major parties. They can't form an independent 3rd party because they will be marginalized. In a proportional representation systems the small interests can survive as independent parties.

But the only REAL obstacle to forming a new party in the US is that you have to get 40%-50% of the electorate behind you. If you can't muster that support, you have to get some fraction of your views expressed through one of the 2 major parties.

[No Elephants]

92. You are mashing up lots of issues. The law is one thing.

Republicans and Democrats did join hands to make it harder for third parties. That was undemocratic, but legal action. Nader is alleging illegal activity in the State of Maine, though. Unless you (a) read the complaint and (b) have a private detective or some other way of knowing for certain whether the facts alleged are false or true, you cannot possibly know if the suit is meritorious or not.

[defendandprotect]

115. Just adding to "No Elephants" comments . . . sadly it is the Democratic Party

which has been blocking the Greens and blocking Nader, especially --

In fact, the Greens had great problems with infiltration/co-option by the Democrats --

As long as the only competitition to the Democratic Party is from the neo-fascist GOP,

then the Democrats will continue to move to the right.

These are right wing, anti-democratic interests within the Democratic Party which give

leadership to these tactics of blocking third parties.

[msanthrope]

128. Here in PA the Greens accepted Far-right help and fraudulently

ran.

Good thing that the Dems fought it. It made me realize just how corrupt the Greens were....that you would accept help from Santorum operatives is indefensible...

HEre's the thread that outlines the Green's corrupt attempts in PA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2753326

[totodeinhere]

47. You are not going to get very far talking down to people like that.

I really sense that times are different now and widespread disgust with both major political parties and business as usual will leave a legitimate opening for a third party. I don't think that Nader will be the one to head that party, but calling him "self-absorbed" is disingenuous IMO. Name me a politician who isn't self-absorbed.

[rayofreason]

64. Nader is self-absorbed.

Consider Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Each represents a minority view in their party, but each stays within the party pushing for their ideas to become mainstream. And each has had a measure of success pushing a point of view. They influence people. Not Nader. He is not leading a real 3rd party. He does it for ego. The only possible 3rd party right now is the Tea Party - fueled as you have so corrected identified as the disgust with the 2 major parties - though I suspect that it will not develop an independent core program that would eclipse either the Rs or Ds. However, the development of 3rd parties is a highly nonlinear event - if they become successful (i.e. replace a dominant party to create a new 2-party division), it happens quickly. Otherwise they fade fast (witness Perot).

And if I was a bit nasty in my reply #22, I guess you can put it down to navel-gazing comments as I do not suffer fools gladly who seem to have no clue about how electoral systems work and who perpetually will find themselves as the champion of impossible perfect (in their eyes) and in opposition to the good (as seen in party/consensus eyes). Elections are to be won, not thrown away by self-rightous fools who have no chance to win, but have lots of chances to split the vote. Want to Vote for Nader? Do it in a true Red state where it doesn't have a chance of tossing an election.

[No Elephants]

93. Again, conflating issue after issue.

[salguine]

56. Yeah, a two-party system is the best of all possible worlds, especially when both parties

are wholly owned subsidiaries of Aetna, Citibank, GlaxoSmithKline, MasterCard and Kaiser Permanente. No, third parties couldn't possibly have anything to offer in a case like that.

You want to talk about fascism? The definition of Fascism is, essentially, the complete merging of state power with corporate power, which is exactly what we have now.

[rayofreason]

73. If you are talking about...

...the corporate/WallStreet bailouts, the takeover of GM, the collusion with insurers and big pharm to take over 1/6 of the economy in a way that will leave us all paying more for less, and a growing tendency to dispense economic opportunity based on political connections, maybe you have a point.

And I pretty much agree with what you wrote about Fascism, except that Fascism always had an anti-capitalist, collectivist/corporatist, pro-monopoly, populist streak, that (so far) is missing from mainstream American politics. For example, the NSDAP program included:

The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:
Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Fascism is really a 3rd way - related to, but not the same as socialism or traditional conservatism.

[No Elephants]

90. What does "winner takes all" system have to do with allegations re: keeping someone off a ballot?

[Wayne Smith]

127. What any well-educated Poli-Sci major would tell you about proportional representation

"Among advanced western democracies it has become the predominant voting system. For instance, in Western Europe, 21 of 28 countries use proportional representation, including Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland."

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/PRsystems.htm

[NeoGreen]

26. +10^Google n/t

[jobycom]

30. Nader is not doing it for third parties. He's doing it for himself. Ergo, self-absorbed nonsense.

This freak lied about being a millionaire, lied about not owning a house or car, lobbied Congress against corporate disclosure laws, used hardnose union-busting techniques for his own companies, and got rich off stock market investments his own "watchdog" companies were investigating. It's embarrassing how many cons he's run and people he's fooled. Get a real hero, not this money-grubbing, lying, self-centered Republican piece of shit.

[defendandprotect]

43. Try showing us some evidence of those claims . . .

[No Elephants]

94. Nader is about as un-Republican as it gets in the U.S., outside the Socialist and Communist Parties

I am not saying the allegations of his complaint are valid, but calling everyone who challenges Democrats a Republican is just silly.

[msanthrope]

129. Then why did the Green Party Take Help from Santorum/Repukes

here in PA?

Did you forget how Santorum/Romanelli/Repukes/GreenParty in PA tried to prevent Casey? Forget that partnership?

Here's a thread detailing it all....the Green got in bed with Santorum. SANTORUM!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2753326

[pnwmom]

53. When defending the rights of 3rd parties means defending fake registrations,

let me know. The Democratic party was correct to check on the registrations submitted for Nader's party.

[No Elephants]

96. Does Nader's complaint allege that checking registrations is illegal?

He is alleging illegal and malicious activity. My guess is that his complaint alleges conduct other than challenging registrations, which is certainly a legal tactic.

[karynnj]

125. Just as the rest of us don't know the content of his accusation,

you don't either. What kinds of things could be done - Nader failed to get adequate signatures. Do you think K/E stole his petitions and tore them up? They have the legal right to lobby against people signing.

[New Dawn]

83. Exactly, excellent post.

[Peace Patriot]

138. Excellent arguments, Defendandprotect! I agree! I was "born" a Democrat,

in a labor household, have been a member of the Democratic Party all my life, have voted in every election, as well as contributing money and time, and have religiously supported Democratic candidates despite the egregious and increasingly frequent betrayals of the American people that I have seen in our party leaders and public officials.

I have also recently learned, in reading about the successful leftist democracy movement that has swept most of South America and half of Central America, that the problem facing grass roots Latin American movements that represent the majority of the people has very often been a Tweedle-dee/Tweedle-dum political structure where two parties maintain a lock on government power and both represent only the moneyed elite and entrenched interests. Both parties sold out to U.S.-dominated "free trade for the rich" and other giveaways of their country's sovereignty. Both parties oppressed the vast poor majority, excluded them from power, failed to serve them, denied them basic decencies of life--decent wages, decent jobs, pensions, education, health care, infrastructure--and ill-served their countries in every way, including gross malfeasance, corruption and violent repression. We are not alone in having this problem of the two-party structure preventing real democracy and doing grave harm to the country.

In Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, the solution was a complete re-thinking of the political structure of the country in public assemblies--called "constituent assemblies"--re-writing of the constitutions and submitting new constitutions to a vote of the people. But they had first to elect leaders and governments who were independent of the two-party structure who could promote this change.

Another problem we have in common with Latin America is corporate domination of the media and a relentless, 24/7 bombardment of corpo-fascist propaganda monopolizing the public airwaves. The news media is in some ways worse in Latin America than here.

So, how did they overcome these obstacles? The answer, to boil it down to the essentials, is this:

1. Grass roots organization.

2. TRANSPARENT vote counting, and honest, fair election rules and administration.

3. Think big!

Each of these elements has a long story to it. But the details may not be as relevant to us as the broad principles. For instance, we don't have international monitoring of our elections nor organizations like the OAS, the Carter Center and the EU, which have helped Latin American countries set up transparent, fair systems. If we want transparent vote counting and honest, fair elections, we have to accomplish this ourselves, with the first order of business being BANNING trade secret electronic vote counting, with the code owned and controlled by a handful of rightwing corporations with virtually no audit/recount controls. This rightwing, SECRET, corporate control of the vote counting--fast-tracked all over the U.S. during the 2002 to 2004 period--is WHY we have gotten absolutely nowhere with any serious reform. It is still possible to change this, with strong grass roots campaigns at the local/state level.

How such a grass roots campaign might be organized in such a huge and culturally diverse country as the U.S. is another issue where the broad principle applies but the details of Latin American campaigns might not be relevant. For instance, Bolivia has a majority indigenous population who have much in common with each other, have suffered common wrongs and have close community and tribal ties. We have a more diverse population whose chief characteristic is loose or no community ties. Bolivia's leftist democracy movement began with large, well-organized and disruptive protests against great wrongs (for instance, against Bechtel's monopoly of the water system and its jacking up prices to the poorest of the poor--even charging poor peasants for collecting rainwater!) This might not be the best strategy for the U.S. Perhaps "You Tube" is the answer here. Or perhaps we just haven't reached the 'critical mass' as to poverty and oppression that would generate effective protests of that kind. The grass roots--that is, activation of our democracy, mobilization of our people--is both the method and the point of a serious reform movement. But how to do it here?

We do have people "thinking big"--for instance, a lot of people recognize that we MUST dismantle over-large, monopolistic, multi-national corporations and take away their "right" to live forever--accumulating vast wealth and power to use against the rest of us--and break their vulture grip on our government. But how do we do it? There are a lot of "baby steps" toward democracy that we need to take first--such as evicting them and their 'TRADE SECRETS' from our vote counting systems.

Latin Americans have not established fair elections and truly representative democracies overnight. They have been working on their democratic institutions for two decades--in reaction to the horrors--the 'dirty wars,' the heinous, U.S.-supported dictatorships--of the Reagan era. We need to do that work. And we need to do it faster than they did, because global climate destabilization is upon us--the planet's ecosystem is in very big trouble and deteriorating very fast--and the U.S., which is wasting vast resources on war and militarization (which, among other things, is further polluting the planet), is the key to saving the planet. This country's actions are critically important. And we have global corporate predators and war profiteers determining U.S. policy.

Ralph Nader's lawsuit about being kept off ballots is just one small aspect of a much bigger problem, which is that our elections are neither fair nor transparent. His political fortunes, or your opinion of him, are a side issue, and a distracting issue. Look to the bigger picture, and ask yourself if your interests and the interests of the majority of Americans are being well-served by our political system, and, if not, WHY NOT? The bully power of party leaders as to keeping Nader off of a ballot is a SYMPTOM of a much bigger problem with the fundamental conditions for democracy--even to the very mechanism of vote counting itself--which are preventing this country from correcting its course, as a democracy should be able to do.

[24601]

150. Not really a great analogy citing unions when joining one isn't

an option without a union to join, or not joining one when there is a closed shop and it's not a right to work state.

Running for office however doesn't legally require joining a party but it's useless to run for a major office without one.

On unions, a compromise:

1. Anyone, even a President, can form or join one

2. No one may be forced to join one

On Politics,

Ballot access rules apply to all equally, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.


Please forward my Nobel Prize for reason & logic to the following address....

[ChicagoSuz219]

42. I'd like to sue him for the 2000 (s)election... n/t

[defendandprotect]

44. Oh . . . don't bother suing the Supreme Court . ...

obviously Nader had something to do with their decisions!!!

:eyes:

[ChicagoSuz219]

50. Can't sue the Supreme Court. Bummer! n/t

[No Elephants]

98. You can sue, but winning the appeal in the Supreme Court would be really tough.

Not to mention that it would take one heck of a brave federal judge to rule in your favor against his or her bosses.

We have a great justice system, but not a perfect one. Then again, we knew that.

[defendandprotect]

114. We have a corrupted system of justice . . . from DOJ to Drug War and Supremes. . . .

and the rise of the right corrupts everything it touches --

[ChicagoSuz219]

120. What do they say? It's the worst one...

...except for all the others... ;-)

[No Elephants]

97. I hated Nader for 2000, until the last 12 months.

Now, I began to see his point about the DLC's positions being virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans.

[salguine]

54. Like hell it is. I watched the whole thing happen in 2000 and 2004. State Democratic parties

all over the country pulled all kinds of skeevy shit to keep third parties off of ballots—shit that was in many cases not only unethical, but illegal. If there's any true fairness or rule of law here, people will go to jail.

I don't care who's side you're on. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. I would rather lose an election fair and square than win it by cheating and pulling underhanded shit.

[omega minimo]

69. What a load of self-absorbed nonsense. n/t

[No Elephants]

91. Did you even read the complaint?

[FreakinDJ]

2. That FuckTard will do any thing to get attention

[defendandprotect]

7. Sure couldn't have anything to do with democracy . . . or could it?

We have a two-party lock on our futures --

you don't have to join or vote for a third party --

However, give some thought to how it benefits you to have competittion vs

the two party tyranny.

This is not about Nader . . . it's about the right of all third party candidates

to not be blocked by the two parties who run politics as their private domain!!

[AnOhioan]

18. Agreed wholeheartely...

That is why I am thrilled that in Ohio other parties now have ballot access;

COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Republican and Democratic Parties in Ohio will no longer have a lock on access to the ballot now that state election officials, making good on a court decision in the fall of 2006 that found the laws for political party formation and ballot access were unconstitutional, have enabled candidates running under the party name of Libertarian, Green, Socialist and Constitutional to join in the fun that is our representative system of government.

The good news for these outsider parties came in a state directive to all 88 county Boards of Election (BOE) that given that the General Assembly has not yet enacted a new ballot access statute following the September 6, 2006 court decision, and given the high likelihood of success on the merits of any new lawsuit to obtain ballot access, they are "hereby instructed to continue to recognize these political parties and to grant candidates of these political parties ballot access in the 2010 election cycle."

More at:

http://www.examiner.com/x-23537-Columbus-Government-Examiner~y2010m1d5-Libertarian-Green-Socialist-and-Constitution-parties-secure-access-to-May-primary-ballot-in-Ohio

[defendandprotect]

37. Good news . . . cause some really dirty deals were done across the country . . .

many Democrats don't understand how involved the Dems were in blocking

third parties --

And, imagine this two party tyranny putting a private corporation in charge of the

presidential debates!!

[FreakinDJ]

32. Nader sold you out Loooonnnggg ago friend

Some of us are able to see through the thinly veiled disguise of a "self Seeking Charlatan" out to profit for himself

[defendandprotect]

38. Are you sure you're not looking in a mirror?

Ralph Nader has been serving the public interests for decades --

You're being told here very clearly that the two party tyranny has blocked and

co-opted third parties in their own interests . . .

while joining with the Republican Party to block third parties to protect their common interests

which is to stay in power.

Additionally, these two parties have created a private corporation to run the president elections.

Is that really what you want?

Shouldn't anyone who wants to run for office and who has the capabilities be able to run?

Granted you're prejudiced vs Nader -- but what we are talking about are all third parties and

all of their candidates.

Think about it --

[No Elephants]

99. Politicians who sold out the average American are not limited to Nader..

[grytpype]

23. +1000

[omega minimo]

70. What a load of self-absorbed nonsense. n/t

[No Elephants]

104. In contrast to everyone else who runs for President?

[Gman]

3. OH PUH-LEEEEEEEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!

This guy is directly responsible for EVERYTHING that happened in the last 8 years and he had the audacity to run again in 2004 and then file this suit.

What a laughing stock!

[paulsby]

8. no, he's not responsible

people are responsible for their own votes.

nader has ONE vote.

nader voters may be to blame, but he is not

[Gman]

27. He ran for president. He knew he would split the vote and he still did it

makes him responsible. If anything, those that voted for Nader share the blame.

[paulsby]

33. not as i see it

nor is perot responsible for clinton.

voters are responsible for their votes

it's THEIR choice, and thus their responsibility.

nader didn't make the choice for them.

people have autonomy, and responsibility.

[No Elephants]

103. Perot took votes from both Poppy Bush and Bubba, about equally. It's highly

unlikely that anyone who voted for Dummya considered voting for Nader, though.

I agree with you, though, that Nader is not responsible for either those who voted for him or for the actions of the Democratic Party that had Democrats looking to a third Party candidate.

[paulsby]

139. i'm not sure about the perot taking from poppy vs. bubba thang

but that's another issue (how proportionately or disproportionately perot took votes)...

but we can agree on the nader thang.

i'm all about being responsible for my behavior and others being responsible for theirs.

if person X, voted for nader, that's person X's responsibility, not naders.

[No Elephants]

152. No need whatever to remain unsure after God made Google.

"The effect of Ross Perot's candidacy has been a contentious point of debate for many years. In the ensuing months after the election, various Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler, enough to the detriment of Bush to lose him the election. While many disaffected conservatives may have voted for Ross Perot to protest Bush's tax increase, further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes equally among Clinton, Bush, and those staying home if Perot had not been a candidate, but of the voters who cited Bush's broken "No New Taxes" pledge as "very important," two thirds voted for Bill Clinton.<24> A mathematical look at the voting numbers reveals that Bush would have had to win 12.2% of Perot's 18.8% of the vote, 65% of Perot's support base, to earn a majority of the vote, and would have needed to win nearly every state Clinton won by less than five percentage points.<25> Perot appealed to disaffected voters all across the political spectrum who had grown weary of the two-party system. NAFTA played a role in Perot's support, and Perot voters were relatively moderate on hot button social issues.<26><27>

Clinton, Bush and Perot did not focus on abortion during the campaign. Exit polls, however, showed that attitudes toward abortion "significantly influenced" the vote, as pro-choice Republicans defected from Bush.<28><29>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992



Guess most neocons would rather not know that bc it's inconsistent with their worldview. Good thing none of them post at D.U., huh?

:rofl:

[paulsby]

156. thx for the info

that's why i said "not sure"

unlike most DU posters, i enjoy being shown evidence i was wrong.

it means i learned something.

this place would be a much better place if the small ego'd ignorati could do the same.

but let's admit it. for most people, admitting they were wrong on DU is the cardinal sin.

thx for correcting me.

that's what discussing is about . exchanging ideas AND being willing to change beliefs based on evidence.

[defendandprotect]

40. Was Nader on the Supreme Court ... ? Did Nader stop the vote counting in Florida?

Who rigged computers and stole elections if not the Repugs?

Did Nader help the Repugs HACK computers ?

Keep in mind that Gore WON in Florida . . . and that would have been OFFICIAL and

would have prevented the Bush takeover and the Supreme Court fraud had all the votes

been counted.

[jgraz]

46. Gore knew his corporate centrism would turn off the progressives and he still did it.

Of course, that doesn't make him responsible at all for not being able to convince enough people to vote for him. :eyes:

[suzie]

55. That's a lame, looking backward excuse for the fact that Nader delivered

this country to Bush and the Republicans.

[salguine]

58. Oh, for fuck's sake, no one can still be that stupid. Nader didn't "deliver this country to Bush

and the Republicans". Gore won the election. The Supreme Court delivered this country to Bush and the Republicans. Helping out were the 300,000 Florida DEMOCRATS who voted for Bush. Nader was right when he said "The election was stolen. Go after the thieves."

You still also don't seem to grasp how an election in a democracy works. Your whole premise is based on the tired, tired canard that somehow any votes that Nader won somehow "belonged" to Al Gore, that Nader "stole" them. This load of shit is so ridiculous I can't believe it continues to be necessary to explain it. I voted for Nader in 2000, and you know what? He didn't "steal" my vote from anyone; I GAVE it to him of my own accord. Funny, using the same logic, you could argue that Al Gore stole millions of votes from Nader.

You know what? Fuck it. I'm not wasting my time explaining this to anyone any more.

[jgraz]

62. Ha. No need for me to even be here.

:rofl: Nicely done. :thumbsup:

[salguine]

74. Glad you could drop by, jgraz!

[No Elephants]

101. Yes, there is. Quantity is important, along with quality.

[suzie]

63. It seems that there are many of you Republicans who voted for your fellow Republican, Ralph Nader.

What I don't get is why you're here on a site where most people are supposed to be about supporting Democrats and Democratic candidates.

Oh, and you know what, I'm a Florida resident who spent a lot of time learning about the election of 2000 and a lot more time listening to Nader voters in Florida whine about how the regime that they and their Republican candidate supported for the Presidency was doing a terrible job.

But I have to tell you I get kind of tired of the "Ralph Nader did nothing, those votes didn't count" rationalization for why the Republican Nader delivered the nation to the Bushes.

[jgraz]

66. And now she breaks out the "Republican" slander.

You've lost the argument, sweetie. Run along now.

[salguine]

76. Yeah, I think I can squeeze her onto my ignore list. Y'know, I never put people

on there just because we disagree...to get on there, you have to say things of such breathtaking stupidity that it becomes transcendent. Every time a Nader post comes up, I have to build a whole new wing onto my ignore list.

[jgraz]

77. I'm the same way. You really need a record of complete inanity to make it on.

Lil' suzie's well on her way.

[salguine]

75. I guess I was wrong when I said no one can be that stupid. When I see a sentence that

reads "It seems that there are many of you Republicans who voted for your fellow Republican, Ralph Nader," I can't fathom that it was written by anyone over the age of nine.

[No Elephants]

105. Please see Reply 94. And, while you're at it, maybe 102 as well.

You may also want to read the DU rules again. AFAIK, we may not advocate for defeat of a specific Democratic candidate who is running (as opposed to Gore-Lieberman). Nothing, however, prevents us from suggesting that the Democratic Party often seems to behave a lot like the Republican Party or that Nader may have had a point in 1999-2000, when he suggested much the same thing.

[Iowa]

84. Well said salguine! I agree.

[No Elephants]

100. A whole bunch of people delivered this country to Bush and the Republicans.

In 2000, I felt as you did.

[No Elephants]

102. DADT, DOMA, repeal of Glass Steagall, NAFTA

DADT, DOMA, repeal of Glass Steagall, NAFTA and other corporatist and/or RW actions of Democrats had turned off a lot of leftist Democrats and Independents and the Lewinsky mess had turned off a lot of religious Democrats and Independents, who wondered what American history classes in elementary school would be like after Clinton, from Genifer Flowers to Paula Jones to Impeachment Mary Lewinsky.

Nader/Green Party gave people a choice other than voting Republican. Many who could not bear to vote Republican would have stayed home but for Nader. And I am sure many stayed home anyway, thinking that the effect of their vote for Nader would not be worth standing on line at the polls.

I stood on line for four hours in pouring rain to vote for Kerry. But the Democratic Party has not been doing its job, IMO. If it had been, Nader have not had any reason run. And, if he had run anyway, just for ego, he would not have gotten any votes.

You know, when Democratic politicians do not stay true to the principles of the Democratic Party and Democratic Party members let them get away with that, those two groups share--maybe even bear--responsibility for loss of Democratic votes.

[Gman]

154. Afghanistan, Iraq, millions dead

That's all I need to say? Anymore questions?

[defendandprotect]

4. We also need something done re IRV voting . . .

but first, I guess, we need an actual Democratic Party!!

:evilgrin:

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. Ballot access in Maine is fairly easy. If they tried it didn't work

Nader and McKinney were both on in 2008. Nader and Cobb were both on in 2004 (including local Pat LaMarche for Green VP in 2004). Nader was on the ballot in 2000. There have never in my memory been less that four, and usually more, presidential lines on the Maine ballot, and Mainers will vote for them, too. Perot finished second here, ahead of Bush pérè, in 1992.

[No Elephants]

106. None of that bears on whether illegal tactics were used to try to keep Nader off the ballot, though.

What you're saying goes to what his damaages might have been, not to whether something wrong was done.

I don't know if anyone did wrong Nader Maine, but that, too, is a separate issue.

As an aside, it's seems everyone on this thread assumes that Perot took votes only, or primarily, from Poppy Bush. That is not the case.

[karynnj]

124. True, but won't Nader have to show that harm was done to have a case?

The state of Maine itself clearly had the right and responsibility to make charges. In other states, Nader's suits have been quickly rejected. (I know in PA, the problem was that he had too few valid signatures - as he had many who were Disney characters and fictitious people. )

Senator Kerry himself had a friendly meeting with Nader, where Nader came out praising Kerry, but still running - claiming he could "help" Kerry by attacking Bush harder. Nader did not repeat the smear that "there was no difference between Bush and Gore" against Kerry. He referred to Kerry's brave actions in the 1970s. It is not surprising that Kerry's campaign would prefer Nader not be on the ballot in swing states - but Maine was not really a swing state.

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. Way to go, Ralph.

Piss off even more people before you're too old to know what's going on.

[harkadog]

15. If fighting for democracy pisses people off then so be it.

[Fire1]

10. Sour grapes. n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

11. if he can prove it, more power to 'em

[countmyvote4real]

36. I have to agree. Bring it on.

My first reaction was much like many here. And I do think Mr. Nader has a bloated sense of his self-importance. But if his claims are true (and they really could be) then bring it on.

Of course, I'd rather see some bigger fish fried and tried for treason first. I've had different priorities than Ralph for quite some time now.

[rwheeler31]

12. Who is paying this once strong man to ruin himself?

[onehandle]

14. Loser. Oh, except for the election of George W. Bush in 2000.

He totally won that year.

[frog92969]

16. K&R

[Zoeisright]

17. Just go away, Ralph.

You lost any relevance years ago. What a dipshit.

[BeatleBoot]

19. Proof that Nader is NOT A DEMOCRAT!

Thanks for 8 years of "W", Ralphie-boy!

[frog92969]

21. After he ran as a Green, I didn't need more proof.

:shrug:

[BeatleBoot]

28. Imagine that

the Green Party running against Al Gore.

[No Elephants]

108. Yes, when you run for President on the Green Party ticket, it's a safe bet you're

not a Democrat anymore.

Nader had a lot of help in 2000, though, first and foremost, from the Bush appointees on the SCOTUS and from voter fraud. But, corporatist Democrats and those who let them get away with being corporatist helped, too.

[w4rma]

20. Get lost you egotistical union buster, Nader. (nt)

[Cartoonist]

24. How about doing something positive?

Rather than try to stop Bush from becoming president, he actually accepted republican money for his campaign. I view Ralph Nader as the Benedict Arnold of progressives. Rather than firing his guns at the bad guys, he shot Al Gore in the back. Those who supported, and even went so far as to vote for him are the GOP's best friends. They thanked you every day of GW's presidency.

As for his current action, I see his guns are still aimed at the wrong party. The GOP is loving this. They'll probably pay his legal bills for him.

[SoapBox]

25. Nader Go Home!

...I used to think, MANY years ago, that he had the interests of good Americans in mind...

BUT, he certainly has shown himself to be a freak and weirdo over the last several years.

Mr. Nader...GO * A * WAY!

[jobycom]

29. That dude runs more scams than the Bush family?

You sure he's not related?

[Jefferson23]

31. I would like to see what he has on the Kerry election team.

I'm amazed at some of the responses here bashing Nader.

[politicasista]

34. LOL! This place siding with Nader over a Democrat

:rofl: :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

45. Nor "corporatism" is democracy . . . ???

I didn't know that -- !!!

:eyes:

[Jefferson23]

118. Siding with a Nader over a Democrat? How old are you?

[Babyhoneylips]

35. 6 years later? nt.

[Better Believe It]

39. Party officials "alllegedly" worked to prevent people from voting for Nader?

That's like alleging the Republican Party and Supreme Court stole the 2000 election with Joseph Leiberman's support!

Move along folks .... nothing to see here.

Sure.

[No Elephants]

109. Working to defeat him is perfectly legal, but he alleges use of

malicious and illegal means to keep him off the ballot, which is very different from using legal means to defeat him.

[western mass]

48. Hope he wins

Corporate Dems hate democracy.

Nothing they hate more than someone who exposes their right-wing ways.

[Proletariatprincess]

49. YOU GO RALPHIE BOY!

You are the man. A national treasure. It doesn't matter that so many here are taking shots at you. A prophet is never appreciated in his own time or land. What you are doing is very important work and I wish you long life and much success at it.
You will have my vote every time you run for office or endorse a candidate.

[salguine]

60. Proletariatprincess, did you ever know that you're my hero?

[mac56]

116. Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid, tastes great......

:eyes:

[salguine]

136. Maybe you should try some...it'll help wash down the constant stream of

shit sandwiches the Party keeps handing you, and that too many people seem content to keep eating.

[mac56]

140. "The Party"?

Be more specific, apparatchik.

[salguine]

142. delete/error

[salguine]

143. delete/error

[salguine]

144. delete/error

[salguine]

145. delete/error

[salguine]

delete/error

[salguine]

146. The Democratic Party. The one that just served us all the big

shit sandwich called Mandated Insurance without the side order of Public Option.

[mac56]

147. Just think how much closer we would have been by now to real reform

if Ralphie hadn't given the POTUS to the GOP on a silver platter.

[gtar100]

51. Wonder what it's like to have so much time on my hands.

Hopefully I won't be so vindictive if I ever get it.

[austin78704]

52. Hey, Nader haters in this thread

If Nader really is such a villain that he split the democratic ticket and caused Bush's election, how is it that Clinton managed to get elected to a second term?

Easy, Clinton ran a better campaign than Gore or Kerry did. Obama also got elected despite Nader's audacity.

You know, when you think about it, Gore is an intelligent man and talented speaker with a long, successful political career that most sane people would be proud of. Bush, OTOH, was a recycled frat boy who seemed barely literate every time he opened his mouth. He also had a well-established history in Texas as a shitty governor. If the margin between Gore and Bush was so thin, that's a failure on the part of the Gore campaign to not utterly steamroll the idiot.

It's even sadder for the Kerry campaign because at that point the immense damage from the Bush administration wasn't hypothetical--he'd been royally fucking up EVERYTHING for four years.

It makes you look like a stupid bully to accuse a tiny third-party candidate of being your greatest threat while ignoring the major political party that systematically destroys just about everything it can get its hands on. It's even worse to ignore your own party's failings so you can make room to pick on the little guys out there. You do realize that tens of millions of people who are not Nader voted for Bush, don't you? Why are they not the bad guys in all of this? Hell, I see some of you say that Nader is responsible for everything that happened under Bush's terms. Why is Bush not responsible for all of it?

Here's a crazy idea: why not earn the votes? You know, like you're supposed to? You don't have some kind of divine right to X number of votes just because you're not Republicans. After all, if all of us voted for Democrats just because they're not Republicans, what leverage do we have over our politicians when they sell out? I'm absolutely furious that Obama continues the wars and failed to show even an ounce of leadership in the health care fight--what can I do about it?

I want a third option, and if that third option gets traction, it isn't because we need to outlaw third options, it's because the first two options have a lesson to learn. And if it's unclear, that lesson is not that that you need to throw a goddamned tantrum because some dared to vote for a third party.

[pnwmom]

57. Gore wasn't as charismatic as Clinton. But he would have been a hell of a lot

better President than Bush.

Nader got 95,000 voters in Florida alone, after he insisted on putting most of his efforts into important swing states like Florida. Florida was decided by 500 voters. We can thank Nader for George Bush.

[suzie]

65. +500

[jgraz]

78. So no other candidate should run for fear our nominee will suck?

The one person who holds the most responsibility for Al Gore's loss is... Al Gore. He was running against a religiously insane, functionally retarded, dry drunk, spoiled rich turd who never achieved anything without Daddy's help. Remind me again how the election was even close.

[pnwmom]

79. Gore won the most votes, but he lost a critical swing state thanks to the voters

who believed Nader's lie that Bush and Gore were no different.

The media hated Gore because they thought he was a boring policy wonk. They played up Bush as a good old boy, and lots of good old boys bought it.

[jgraz]

80. 300,000 Florida Democrats voted for BUSH.

Is *that* also Nader's fault?

[pnwmom]

86. Most of them hadn't been Democrats for years, if you followed voting trends.

The Reagan years brought many Dems to the Rethug column, who never changed their voter registrations.

[jgraz]

87. But the Nader voters, those were the REAL Democrats

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

113. No, they were the self-professed progressives who were happy to hand

power over to Bush, under the misconception that Bush and Gore were the same.

[jgraz]

121. You're locked into a belief not supported by evidence.

You insist on blaming the few percent of people who voted their conscience instead of the huge amount who voted for Bush, the candidate who failed to beat him, the Court who raped the Constitution and the criminal organization that stole the election. Failure to understand these basic concepts led directly to another weak, centrist candidate in 2004 and another stolen election.

[pnwmom]

122. 95,000 Florida voters for Nader in an election decided by 500.

The Bush voters WANTED a conservative President. Supposedly the Nader voters did not -- but by choosing to vote for a candidate who had no chance of winning, they helped to elect one.

Nader also hurt Gore directly by lying about him and his policies, attacking him with the claim that he was no different than Bush. If Nader cared more about establishing a third party than about showing he could swing an election, then he would have followed the advice of progressives who were urging him to concentrate on the non-swing states - and to consider vote swaps that would have given him more votes in those states to compensate for not campaigning in places like Florida.

[jgraz]

123. See? Not supported by evidence. The election was decided by one vote, 5-4.

You still believe that 500 vote canard, ignoring the tens of thousands of votes that were stolen by Jebby and Katharine Harris. If 500 more people had voted for Gore, do you really think the GOP would have conceded Florida?

It had nothing to do with Nader. The election was stolen from a weak candidate unable to put away an even weaker, more dangerous candidate. Failure to learn this lesson is why the Democrats nominated another weak candidate in 2004 and why they allowed another election to be stolen.

[pnwmom]

132. It had everything to do with Nader. If he hadn't been campaigning in Florida,

the election would have been won by Gore with more than enough votes to assure that it never wound up in the Supreme Court.

[jgraz]

135. And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

With all the factors that went in to Gore's miserable performance in 2000, to continue to blame one tiny element for the entire disaster is, frankly, delusional.

[austin78704]

141. You don't know that.

You assume it is the case, but there is no way to prove one way or the other what those who voted for Nader would have done without him running.

But even if you did find a way to prove what you claim, your argument is disgusting anyway. Think about it, you're insisting that a third party candidate either remove himself voluntarily, or be removed legally, so that voters who have proven that they prefer to vote for him would not have that option. You want to take the choice away from other voters to force them to do what you think is best for them. Or for you.

Well, that's the sort of behavior that has made the Republican party so awful. If "my side" is going to look just like "their side" just to win, did I win?

[austin78704]

89. I agree that Gore would have been far better than Bush

However, there was a long chain of events that took place to get Bush into the Whitehouse--why do you insist that the only place to break that chain was Nader's campaign?

[ima_sinnic]

95. no, you can thank the SC for George Bush

but it's good to know that 3rd-party candidates DO have an effect, because they are about to become extremely important. In fact, I just reregistered as an Independent on Wednesday, and I plan to shop carefully before I buy any more crap from forked-tongue "change" politicians.

[No Elephants]

110. That's one way of looking at it; and the same way that I looked at it until recently.

For another way, please see Reply 102. Or Pogo.


Every time a Democrat rationalizes abandonment of Democratic principles by corporatist Democratic officeholders, a third party vote gets its wings. So much easier to blame Nader, though. Guess that's why I did it for so many years.

[AlphaCentauri]

59. Nader is a villain

to corporate interest and those who get a check from them

[omega minimo]

67. Holy Effin Shit and Welcome to DU!

This line jumped out but the whole post is spot on :applause: :toast:

".....that's a failure on the part of the Gore campaign to not utterly steamroll the idiot."

[jgraz]

81. Nicely done. Welcome to DU.

:thumbsup:

[Iowa]

85. Well said. I see you're new here, and I hope you stick around.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[NashVegas]

126. Awesome Post

Thanks for sharing.

[Vidar]

61. Good for Nader.

[omega minimo]

68. GOLDSTIEN!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr stomp stomp chew rend grrrrrrrrr

[TexasObserver]

71. Ralph who?

Forty years ago there was a guy by that name who was worthwhile, but he hasn't been seen in almost 40 years. The one now is a GOP tool.

[davidpdx]

82. So he files five years after the election?

That makes complete sense! Why not wait a few more years?

Can anyone say publicity stunt?

[Tarheel_Dem]

133. +10,000

[rasputin1952]

88. Nader, always the bridesmaid, never the bride...

He never had a chance, just about everyone but Nader knows that.

Let him sue, he'll lose, if the case even gets to to a jury.

[No Elephants]

112. He knew better than anyone that he had no chance of winning the election. He was trying to wake

Democrats up, both those who run and those who vote.

[rasputin1952]

119. I don't buy that...

I honestly believe it was nothing more than ego, an issue that has always been a part of his psyche.


At one time, Nader did a lot to bring issues to the forefront of American consume.he knew perfectly well he had no chance to win in any election he partook...all he could possibly be was a "spoiler".

If he awakened anything...it was a tidal wave of anger...which made him a pariah for D's, and a savior for R's...I don't see any redeeming quality in that.

[salguine]

148. You have no idea. There isn't a shred of ego about the man. I've known him for

a considerable time now. He lives in a modest walk-up apartment in DC. He has a small black & white TV and he hasn't owned a car since 1959. After living expenses, he plows every nickel he makes into the dozens of public advocacy groups he's founded oner the last forty years or so. If that sounds like an egomaniac to you...well, then.

And the "spoiler" charge is ridiculous, too. Aside from being based in the profoundly undemocratic premise that only Republicans or Democrats are entitled to any votes, it also isn't possible to spoil a system that's already rotten to its core.

[dionysus]

137. wake them up by being a complete douchebag? by taking GOP money to run?

by promising not to campaign in florida and lying? by having that raytheon stock in his portfolio even as he railed against the MIC?

nader is one of many, many factors responsible for * to get in office...

[Bill219]

107. I support the idea of third parties

But the way that Nader and all the others go about it just never makes sense.

In order to build up support for third party candidates you need to start small. Get elected to local offices and proceed from there. Build up a track record of accomplishments that you can present to the people so they can make an informed vote at election time. You have to change the way that when most Americans hear the words "third party" they do not automatically think "fringe" or "kooks" or any of the other terms that are associated with being a third party.

The only time we hear of these third party candidates is in the year of the election when they declare their intentions to run and they think that if they go out and attack the two major parties that that will get it done.

[City Lights]

111. Go fuck yourself, Ralph.

IMHO, you are a fraud.

[No Elephants]

117. I no longer hate or blame Nader for 8 years of Dummya, but I don't know about this lawsuit.

Society wants people to resolve their differences in courts, as opposed to resorting to other meanss, like blood feuds. So, there is little push from courts/society to say that suing people is wrong, even if litigation is time consuming and costly. You especially don't want to set precedents discouraging people from suing over something as important to society as possible election irregularities.

On the other hand, a quick google shows that verbiage from some Maine cases seems to support Nader's position. http://www.maine.gov/search?q=frivolous+lawsuits&button=Go&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maine.gov%2Fcourts%2F&site=test_collection&output=xml_no_dtd&client=test_collection&proxystylesheet=test_collection

I have not read the cases, so I cannot tel if the support is real or simply rhetoric that seems relevant on the surface.


Whether Nader wins or loses, it will say nothing about the motives or honor of the actions of those who sued him. Ditto his own motives or honor. It will speak only to what current Maine law says on the subject.

[Politicub]

130. Nader was on the ballot in Maine

As were two other non-dem or GOP candidates.

Nader is grandstanding, as usual. If he really wanted to do something useful, he could use his legal skill to do something about black box voting.

[No Elephants]

151. He alleges attempts to keep him off the ballot by illegal means.

He is not alleging that he was ultimately kept off the ballot.

[Politicub]

155. Again, he was on the ballot - the "illegal means" must not have been that intense...

because the Nader political campaign was more like a battery operated clown car. No one was trying to keep him off the ballot, at least not in an institutionalized way as he alleges.

Personally, I think he just likes the spotlight and looks for opportunities for exercising his legal muscle and getting on the teevee.

I would like to see him apply his legal chops to something that would truly start to reform our ever corrupt system and not disrupt our already fragile liberal and progressive movement.

[mac56]

158. +1000

:applause:

[msanthrope]

131. Did everyone here forget How the Green party and the Repukes conspired in PA????

this thread details it all--how the Greens took help from the Repukes to try to influence the election of Senator Casey.

Lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas--I find colluding with Santorum indefensible......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2753326

[davidpdx]

149. They tried to do the same thing in Oregon as well

It's just a convenient fact people want to overlook.

[No Elephants]

153. That thread does not describe a consipiracy.

The article quoted in the OP of that thread says only that Santorum chose to help the Green Party because Santorum believed a third party Green candidate would take votes from the Democratic candidate.

All the Green Party did was run a candidate. That is not conspiring.

Nowhere is it written that Democrats have a right to be free from competition from third parties. Republicans have competition from third parties, too.

(I tried to follow the link to the rest of the article, but it lead to a story about Biden's mother's death.)

[Scout]

134. why did he wait 6 years? n/t

[jonnyblitz]

157. right on! the DEMS are becoming as rancid as the GOP! nt

[MaineDem]

159. Here's the complaint

http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/nader-dnc-complaint.pdf