Kerry Operatives Working Hard To Keep Nader Off Election Ballots

[Solidarity]

John Kerry should repudiate such efforts and clearly state he supports the right of people to vote for the candidates and parties of their choice and does not support any disruption programs designed to deny voters that right. John Kerry should not be surprised by a voter backlash against a well financed campaign to prevent voters from voting for Ralph Nader. Perhaps Kerry's campaign activists and attorneys should concentrate on encouraging several million potential Nader voters and 7 million registered Democrats who voted for Bush to vote for Kerry instead!]

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

Worried Democrats work hard to keep Nader off the ballot

Gary Younge in New York
Tuesday June 1, 2004
The Guardian

Democratic party activists and officials are campaigning to stop the independent candidate Ralph Nader's name appearing on the ballot, because they believe it could threaten their effort to defeat George Bush.

They are using every possible legal means to deny voters the chance of voting for Mr Nader, including advising Democrats not to sign his petitions to get on the ballot, challenging the signatures he does get, and showing ads attacking his candidacy.

Mr Nader is running as an anti-war and anti-corporate candidate.

A recent email from a Texas Democratic party official to members, obtained by the Guardian, was headed Keep Nader off the Texas Ballot and continued: "We need to make sure he is nowhere near a ballot in Texas."

Michael Frisby, communications director of the Stop Nader Campaign, said: "The point is not just to keep him from getting on the ballot but to make him spend money and time in all of these places so he has less money and time to spend getting votes."

A representative of his campaign said the opposition's strategy was misguided, futile and undemocratic. "They're playing a game of expecting us to drop out and that's just not going to happen," Kevin Zees said. "They should be working at getting out there and being competitive."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1228613,00.html

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. I support John Kerry's efforts and may he have great success!

[mzmolly]

3. Ditto!

:toast:

[lancdem]

13. Me, too!

[arwalden]

2. I support John Kerry's efforts and may he have great success!

[David Dunham]

4. Kerry is correct to challenge Nader, who must meet legal standards.

[mzmolly]

5. "I support John Kerry's efforts and may he have great success!"

Hey I like it!

[trumad]

6. Hey..that's Democracy

and if it's legal, then all the power to them....

[monkeymind]

7. Im glad

we should thank Kerry for his efforts to keep the 2 party monopoly.
If we had more than 2 choices it would be democracy and we can't have that.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. *lol* Welcome to DU.

[H2O Man]

8. Get real.

Of course the Kerry supporters are going to tell democrats not to support Nader's effort to help elect bush. Show me a single ad by the Kerry campaign that attacks Nader's right to be a candidate. Nader supporters should not be competing with the bush camp for being #1 in misrepresenting what Kerry stands for.

[Walt Starr]

10. I support this 100% and hopit is successful!

This is a smart move by the Kerry campaign.

[sangh0]

11. "I support John Kerry's efforts and may he have great success!"

.

[NoPasaran]

12. Screw Nader and his Fifth Column

I hope Ralphie is on the ballot only in Hell.

[Solidarity]

16. Is Election Ballot Sabotage In Fashion Now?

Would those who support efforts to sabotage free elections also be so quick to support any Republican party efforts to deny ballot status to the Libertarian presidential candidate this year? Probably not.

In 2000 virtually all liberals, progressives and radicals demanded a democratic vote count in Florida. And we objected to the Supreme Court's obstruction of that vote count and appointment of George Bush to the Presidency. We stood for free and democratic elections. And Albert Gore, to his credit, and the Democratic Party, to their credit, did not attempt to interfere with the right of people to vote for the candidate of their choice. They did not try to keep Ralph Nader nor any other presidential candidate off the ballot anywhere! And that was the right thing to do.

If you can't compete against all other candidates for votes honestly, without engaging in ballot sabotage, than perhaps you shouldn't run at all.

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



Bush's Third-Party Threat

"The Libertarians will impact Republicans more than Nader will impact Democrats."
Lawrence Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project at the University of Minnesota

(CBS) By David Paul Kuhn,
CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer
NEW YORK, May 21, 2004

While Democrats fret over the possibility of Ralph Nader causing them to lose another election by stealing votes on the left, President Bush may face an even greater third-party threat from the right wing. The Libertarian Party nominee could cost Mr. Bush his job in 2004.

It is a hypothesis not yet made in the mainstream media. But interviews with third-party experts and activists across the country, as well as recent political patterns, illustrate that there could be a conservative rear-guard political attack against President Bush.

Libertarians will be on at least 49 state ballots, several more than the most optimistic expectations of Nader. While Democrats rally around their nominee, the base of the Republican Party is showing some signs of fragmentation.

“The Libertarians will impact Republicans more than Nader will impact Democrats,” said Lawrence Jacobs, the director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota and possibly the nation’s preeminent expert on third-party politics.

In the key battleground state of Wisconsin, the 2002 Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Ed Thompson garnered about 185,000 votes, a startling 10.5 percent. The new governor, Democrat Jim Doyle, won the state by about 75,000 votes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/politics/main619019.shtml

[NoPasaran]

21. Keeping Nader off the ballot is not sabotaging the election

Every Bush-enabling moron who wants to vote for him has that right, IF Ralphie can legally get on the ballot. And I hope they can live with the consequences of their misguided childish actions.

[jpgray]

33. It isn't 'sabotage' to act legally against an opponent in an election

Nader knew the laws when he chose to run so late and as an independent--Kerry is free to use whatever legal means he wishes to help defeat Ralph Nader. That's part of what a political campaign is.

edit: I see this is the same article that was in LBN. The debate is whether Democratic folks 'should' be doing this, but they are not being cruel and unusual to Ralph--this is the way democracy works.

[sangh0]

37. And it's not "hypocrisy" to claim it's "sabotage" when it's just democracy

It's merely "stupidity"

[onehandle]

14. "Kerry Operatives"? Not according to the article.

Nice spin.

"There is no evidence that Mr Kerry's campaign is directly involved in these efforts, but senior Democrats in Congress and in his campaign privately concede that they are in favour of keeping him off the ballot."

[OKNancy]

15. I was just going to post that

Here is the thread from LBN
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x593968

[arwalden]

17. I Caught That Too... It didn't occur to me that I should point it out...

... but I'm guessing that a LOT of people don't readily spot such giveaway phrases.

-- Allen

[Solidarity]

18. My Mistake!

I'll correct that. Just a few people acting on their own, let's call them mere "supporters". Hardly operatives. Sure. But, if they are not working on behalf of John Kerry's campaign he can urge them to stop their disruption programs for the good of his campaign. Can't he do that? I think he should. And you know what? If he did that, I'm sure such efforts to stop a democratic election would quickly end.

[sandnsea]

46. What operatives are working hard????

Nader operatives, smearing Kerry. We're all pretty used to it by now.

[oasis]

19. Nader's ego is working hard to keep Bush in power. Tit for tat.

[NNN0LHI]

22. As are his supposed supporters. Freepers in disguise if you ask me n/t

[slinkerwink]

20. I support the Kerry campaign's efforts to keep a spoiler from giving

the election to Bush again!

[mzmolly]

61. Here here! People accused Gore of NOT fighting in 2000...

how much you wanna bet many of the same will bitch of Kerry and the Dems "fight" this time?

There is a fight on TWO fronts. One fight is the battle against the Right Wing, the other, is the battle against so called progressives who will "lose no sleep" over Bush winning another election. :hi:

[emulatorloo]

64. Just referring you to post 14 - the original poster "Misspoke"

not "kerry operatives" . . . .

on edit; spelling and clarify

[Ellen Forradalom]

23. It's called "politics." Look into it.

If the Greenies want to play with the big boys, they'd better get used to a little hardball.

[rucky]

24. Resources we should be using against *

unfortunately, Nader has made it necessary to divert some precious manpower.

[Solidarity]

27. Doesn't Kerry Think He Can Win Over Potential Nader Voters?

H2O Man wrote: (1000+ posts)

"Of course the Kerry supporters are going to tell democrats not to support Nader's effort to help elect bush."

That's a misrepresentation of what Nader's supporters are doing. They are not telling voters to vote for George Bush and they don't believe that they are helping George Bush in any manner.

If you want to find out honestly what they really believe I'd suggest you visit some Green Party websites. I'm not a Green Party member but I'm not afraid to visit their websites to find out what they think rather than rely on anti-Green Party activists for guidance and unbiased information.

Now there is nothing wrong with John Kerry appealing to Greens and Nader supporters for their votes. In fact, that's what he should do if he's not trying to marginalize liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party. Maybe he just doesn't care believing he's got the vote of progessives "in the bag". And rather than challenge the views of Nader and compete with him for votes, he prefers denying people the right to vote for Nader by keeping his name off the election ballots. That's not very democratic and undermines the concept of free and democratic elections.

[NNN0LHI]

38. Because there are no potential Nader voters to win over

There are only two kinds of people who say they will vote for Nader. Bush supporters and idiots. And neither of them are going to vote for the Dem nominee under any circumstances.

Wouldn't it be better to save our time and energy trying to get the Dem nominee elected, rather that arguing meaningless bullshit with Bush supporters and idiots?

Don

[rucky]

44. That's why I voted for Dennis Kucinich

BTW, Ralph Nader is NOT running on the Green Party ticket.

[BabsSong]

25. Excuse me--I didn't know Nader was a wing of the Democratic party??

Why do we owe love and roses to Nader? In fact, why the hell did Kerry even meet with him? Since Nader accepts buckets of Repuke money to drain votes from Kerry, why doesn't Ralphie call up Georgie for a chat so he can give him advice??? I thought he hated all equally----could it be that he would be thrown out of the Oval Office on his boney ass if he tried??? Just as Kerry would campaign against Bush, he has both a right and a duty to the Dem Party to campaign against Nader. Perhaps if Ralphie would send back all repuke money, he could complain. Sorry, Ralph, it's politics and you are lining your pockets with the money and feeling no remorse doing so. So don't expect the Dems out working for your rights. You piss on Kerry and say that he deserves to lose if he can't rally the Dems and sell himself. Same to you Ralph----if you can't overcome a bunch of zero Dems who can't do anything right in your opinion, then you don't deserve to be on a ballot, do you???

[Sparkly]

26. Wow, you'd think Nader was an opponent or something. n/t

:nopity:

[Octafish]

28. It'd be one thing if Nader was a Democrat.

But he's not. He's the fellah who gave us Bush Jr.

[Solidarity]

30. Sling Mud Or Debate And Discuss

BabsSong wrote: "Why do we owe love and roses to Nader? In fact, why the hell did Kerry even meet with him? Since Nader accepts buckets of Repuke money to drain votes from Kerry, why doesn't Ralphie call up Georgie for a chat so he can give him advice???

That just another in a long list of slanders directed against Nader. It's like the charge that Nader is a tool of big oil!
But it's easy slinging mud when you don't have to prove or take personal responsibility for your claims.

Why did Kerry have a civil meeting with Nader? Because Nader is not a tool of big oil and is not getting "buckets" of money from George Bush!

Nader has made it clear that his goal is similiar to the goal of Dennis Kucinich. They are using different tactics to achieve the same goal. And that goal is to reform the Democratic Party, take it out of the hands of corporate money and encourage the Democratic Party to adopt a clear platform that represents the interests of working people and that is anti-war.

Have Kucinich and Nader had much success so far in their efforts or have they and other progressives in the Democratic Party been marginalized by the DLC? You decide.

[Octafish]

58. If Nader wants to run for President, get into the primaries.

Then he could run as a Democrat. If he wins, I give him my full support. Otherwise, he's an Independent and I don't give a damn about his candidacy.

[Forkboy]

29. Glad I signed the petition to put him on it then.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

31. LBN thread not going the way you wanted?

And I notice you still haven't changed the misleading thread title.

ON EDIT:

Here are my comments from the LBN thread...

"(T)here is certainly nothing unethical or unfair in what the Democrats are doing. They are fighting against an opponent and that is all. Let's look at the facts. (Democrats) are...

1. Advising Democrats not to sign his petitions to get on the ballot
(What's wrong with that?)

2. Challenging the signatures he does get
(If they're not legal, they should be challenged!)

3. Showing ads attacking his candidacy
(Just as they show ads attacking Bush. It's called campaigning.)

Now who has a problem with this? Who is actually going to say that there is something unethical about any of these strategies? Come on, I dare you."

No one has yet taken me up on that challenge.

Also...

"This is why I have come to despise Nader:

Mr Nader believes that the Democratic party is trying 'to block an effort that reminds them of their past as a party'.

'Why don't the Democrats go after the 8 million Democrats who voted for George Bush in 2000?' he said recently.

Why does Nader believe he should get some kind of a pass or be exempt from political attack? If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I'm no fan of Perot, but at least he didn't go around acting like Democrats and Republicans were bullies for daring to campaign against him. Nader has every right to run, but he should not expect any special treatment. Some Democrats voted for Bush just as some Republicans voted for Gore. That's how it has always been and always will be, and for Nader to act as if there's anything unusual in that is just deceptive. The majority of voters in this country are not 100% loyal to one party or the other.

So far by a mixture of poor organisation and a late start Mr Nader has done a fairly good job of keeping himself off the ballot.

In Oregon, where a nominating convention of 1,000 voters would have sufficed to put him in contention, only 741 people showed up.

In Texas he missed the deadline and is now suing the state, claiming that its requirements are unconstitutional.

It sounds to me like Nader himself is reponsible for most of his own problems. That and the fact that a large number of people are unwilling to make the same mistake twice. And how unsurprising that he would run to the courts to try to fix his problems. Bush v. Gore anyone? I'm sure the right-leaning courts in Texas will be happy to make the law go away so that Nader can run there...because they're just so progressive in Texas. They really want to help out the left wing. (sarcasm)"

The LBN thread again: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x593968

[Solidarity]

34. Say Again?

There is a time limit on editing and didn't know I could also change the caption in addition to the text.

I don't understand your question. I hope you think discussion on democratic elections is in order here and I hope you present your views on this subject.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

39. Do democratic elections include following the rules?

Mr. Nader is the one trying to get around the rules, just as Bush did in 2000. Democrats are merely trying to make sure the law is upheld.

[sangh0]

40. You didn't understand the question?

Who is actually going to say that there is something unethical about any of these strategies?

It's pretty clear to me

:shrug:

[jpgray]

35. How a supporter of unions can support Ralph is beyond my capacity

The man's investments in Gap and the Limited, de facto supporters of slave labor, are absolutely disgusting to me in their hypocrisy. Of course then there are his investments in Raytheon, Halliburton, General Dynamics, et al. :(

[NNN0LHI]

45. We are on an anonymous board here

We don't know who is posting what here. Let me give you an example. I have been posting at the freep site for years now. I almost got banned a few times, and I need a bath when I log off of that site, but I know the limits over there. Same thing is going on here with some posters who think they are fooling someone and for now will remain nameless. Know what I mean?

Don

[Solidarity]

49. Don't Pussyfoot Around, Say What You Believe

No, I don't know what you mean!

Please explain exactly what you mean. I don't like games and appreciate frankness and honesty. Do you know what frankness and honesty means?

[Solidarity]

47. Just More Mud Being Slung .... Pay No Attention

jpgray wrote: "How a supporter of unions can support Ralph is beyond my capacity

The man's investments in Gap and the Limited, de facto supporters of slave labor, are absolutely disgusting to me in their hypocrisy. Of course then there are his investments Raytheon, Halliburton, General Dynamics, et al."

I'm not involved in Nader's campaign but I do support his right to run, the right of people to vote for him and I'm opposed to any election campaign disruption programs designed to prevent people from voting for Nader. If John Kerry cannot compete in the election process for votes and must instead rely on legalistic moves to deny people the right to vote for Nader that is a sad commentary on his campaign .... and his apparent lack of democratic values.

Your charge that Nader is a supporter of "slave labor" is just more mud being slung. You just hope some of it sticks. But, perhaps you can answer this simple question since you seem to be an authority on investments. Does Nader hold any stock in the businesses that are giving money to John Kerry? And can you present us with a complete list of John Kerry's investments?

Corporate Contributions 2004:

John Kerry
2004

Skadden, Arps et al
$159,875

Harvard University
$140,425

Citigroup Inc
$124,700

Time Warner
$107,350

UBS Americas
$107,050

Goldman Sachs
$106,000

Piper Rudnick LLP
$105,750

Robins, Kaplan et al
$103,750

Mintz, Levin et al
$94,100

Akin, Gump et al
$84,050

Latham & Watkins
$71,425

Cassidy & Assoc/Interpublic Group
$68,250

Hale & Dorr
$66,187

Microsoft Corp
$65,915

Morgan Stanley
$63,000

Stanford University
$61,100

JP Morgan Chase & Co
$60,475

Arnold & Porter
$59,550

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
$59,050

Ralph Nader
2004

1
Platform Enterprises
$15,800

2
Farouk Systems
$6,250

3
Kafoury & McDougal
$5,270

4
Kayline Enterprises
$4,000

4
Northwest Children's Theater
$4,000

4
Newford Diagnostic Center
$4,000

[jpgray]

53. That's all you have? Nader as Kerry-lite?

Pathetic. Nader is the one who claims to be the candidate of conscience--he is the one who claims to oppose the corporate plutocracy. So tell me, how do you explain his digusting portfolio, his investing in some of the worst corporate monsters on this earth? By holding up a portfolio that is even worse? Before you try to justify Nader's hypocrisy to me, you ought to be able to do so for yourself.

[jpgray]

32. Nader is legally running, Kerry is legally acting against him

What's the problem? I think a good argument could be made that neither 'should' be doing what they are doing, but as long as everything is legal, I don't see a problem.

edit: I note that this is the same article this poster put up in LBN--there is no indication of Kerry camp involvement.

[Solidarity]

41. Legalistic Arguments Don't Wash

The Supreme Courts decision on Florida was also "legal". I saw a problem.

This is not a legal question. It concerns a blatant effort to deny people the right to vote for the candidate of their choice, technically legal or not.

Many legal actions have been taken over the years to weaken, restrict and curtail our democratic rights, including the right to vote. And sometimes those legal actions were successful and upheld by the courts!

But, that doesn't make them anymore right. So let's drop the legalistic arguments and deal with substance. I consider any attempts to deny people the right to vote for the parties and candidates of their choice to be a betrayal of what this country is suppose to stand for and democratic elections.

[jpgray]

42. Okay, let's talk substance

If he was so foolish to allow the Democrats the legal ability to eliminate his presence on the ballot, he deserves what he gets. Nader doesn't have any right to be coddled, and he will not be--this is the reality of a political campaign. If Nader is not on the ballot, it will be the result of his own foolishness in deciding to run so late and in running without any party's backing.

[Loonman]

36. Sorry, Ralph. You had your chance iin 2000, and you decided to lie

Screw Nader!

[robbedvoter]

43. How dare Kerry oppose his opponent? Dagnabbit!

Anymore whining from the spoilers and I will throw up. Why the f* is Nader running anyway?

[Padraig18]

48. Mr. Nader should follow the ballot-access rules.

If he wants sympathy from me on this score, too bad. Democrats have every right to scrutinize and challenge his signatures, petitions, etc. .

[Solidarity]

51. Is Kerry Afraid Of Ralph Nader?

Will John Kerry's "supporters" be doing that with every independent candidate and party or have they only targeted Nader and the Green Party for disruption?

If John Kerry is afraid of contesting Nader for votes and feels compelled to drive him off the election ballots that sure doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in his campaign. Perhaps Kerry really doesn't believe in free and democratic elections. Perhaps we must now draw the conclusion that Kerry's committment to democratic elections and other democratic rights is paper thin. Perhaps that's why he supports the Patriot Act. And maybe that's why Kerry has failed to speak out against the Bush government's weakening of the Freedom of Information Act. I haven't found anything in Kerry's speeches indicating he will rescind the anti-FOIA guidelines.

If John Kerry doesn't change course by defending our Bill of Rights and democratic elections he could very well face a backlash from voters.

I think many people who support John Kerry's election agree and would like to see him compete in the election for votes rather than deny people the right to vote for whomever they please.

[jpgray]

54. But this process is PART of our free and Democratic elections

Candidates so foolish as to hand their opponents the legal ability to deny their presence on the ballot have no one to blame but their own selves.

[KC21304]

59. Perhaps we must now draw the conclusion

that Ralph is loosing it because he is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. But wait, that's not right ! He isn't expecting a different result ! He wants the same result. And Kerry should help him do it of course.

[Renew Deal]

62. The Green Party and/or Nader is no different than the republicans.

They are an opposition party. They would rather see Nader, Cobb or Comejo elected than Kerry. They are the enemy and they shoul dbe treated that way.

[Padraig18]

69. I don't know about other states, but in IL, we watch like hawks!

It doesn't matter WHICH party it is, if it's not the Democratic candidate, we go over their petitions with a fine-tooth comb.

As far as being 'free and democraric', the laws governing ballot access were passed by our duly-elected representatives and senators in Springfield. If Mr. Nader and his supporters don't like that fact, they should move here, register to vote and then do so.

[Bridget Burke]

50. Good for them.

Apparently they're using "every possibly legal means". No problem with that.

Interesting that Nader is trying to get on the ballot in Texas. I thought the state was "solidly" Republican? His people missed the deadline. Too bad.

[Beloved Citizen]

52. How can I help?

There was a couple of Hale-Boppers in my town collecting signatures for the mumbling mendacity. I asked them if it was true that their paychecks came from certain entities of the RNC (you know, like during the Gray Davis recall), and they refused to speak with me. :shrug:

[Solidarity]

55. Did You Really Want To Talk?

Do you try to engage them in civil discussion and debate or did you just launch some kind of red-baiting or other smear attack against them?

If it was the latter, I would have turned you off real quick as would anyone.

[Beloved Citizen]

56. Shocking news

I generally ask anyone their affiliation when my signature is requested.

Pretty mean, huh.

[Killarney]

57. Cluephone, it's for you!

Kerry wants to BEAT BUSH.

And so do the REAL progressives here.

Nader and Nader-supporters are nothing but Bush enablers this year.

2008 might be a different story and might be a great time for a 3rd party, but NOT NOW.

[Renew Deal]

60. Good. If Nader wants to run, he should have to take his lumps.

Nader is the enemy. The Dems should challenge him and run ads. If he wants to run, he should be challenged.

[karabekian]

63. that sucks

I do not support John Kerry's attempts to supress a legitimate political voice from the election. It bullshit

[emulatorloo]

65. Read the article - IT IS NOT JOHN KERRY - orig poster "Misspoke"

see post 14 and this snip:

There is no evidence that Mr Kerry's campaign is directly involved in these efforts, but senior Democrats in Congress and in his campaign privately concede that they are in favour of keeping him off the ballot.

[sangh0]

66. If they didn't read the article

how is your post, which they won't read, going to fix the problem?

My mother used to say "You can only be so smart, but stupid goes on forever"

[emulatorloo]

68. Just Aggravated at Misleading Title - smacks of "say it enough times

and it will become true" . . .even after the mistake is admitted around post 14, the arguments are still framed as if. . .

[wyldwolf]

67. good