GOP pays to get Nader on AZ ballot - $3 per signature

[Killarney]

Nader dropped off 22,056 signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State, far above the 14,694 required. The vast majority of these signatures were stamped with "PAID CIRCULATOR". The AZ Democratic Party has charged that former AZ GOP chief Nathan Sproul has been paying $3/signature in his efforts to get Nader on the ballot.
http://www.dailykos.com/

[bushisanidiot]

1. Good. I hope the greedy repukes dump millions of dollars into Nader's

campaign because I think Nader is going to pull out before the election. Then, we can laugh at all the repuke morons for mortgaging their homes in an effort to cheat the political process.

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!

[sangh0]

3. Ralph takes Repuke money, and his apologists will claim his independence

but if Kerry uses tow words (ie "progressive internationalism") it's proof that he is in the pocket of the PNAC.

[QC]

5. But you just don't understand.

Ralph is a saint who has come down to live among us, while all the other candidates are just sleazy politicians.

[T Town Jake]

32. LMAO....

Excellent!

[Virginian]

2. Is AZ in play?

I thought McCain had it solidly in GOP hands.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Most definitely in play

Many Arizonans are flat out pissed about Bush's immigration policy and his fiscal irresponsibility.

[yardwork]

6. McCain has no reason to love the Chimp

and I think McCain's party loyalty is getting a little frayed anyway. At least in regards to BushCo.

I look for a major coup in the Republican Party, if the Chimp and his neocons don't self-destruct all by themselves first.

[tandot]

7. The GOP is doing that because they support Democracy and

they think that it is so unAmerican that those darn Democrats don't want Nader to run. NO Republican would EVER do that just because it would benefit BUSH greatly. Or they would NEVER lie to Nader and promise to vote for him and then vote for Bush... /sarcasm off

Here is more:

<snip>
State law requries the signature petitions to include a vice presidential candidate. Nader added one last minute
<snip>

let me guess, Nader's VP will be ... Wolfowitz?

[fdr_hst_fan]

9. Nader needs

to get over himself; he's read so much of his own publicity that he's starting to believe it! And isn't paying for signatures something on the order of BUYING VOTES? Just asking...

[Solidarity]

11. No Evidence Republicans Financed Nader Ballot Activity

Let's at least have a little honesty and fairness. I suppose anyone can claim anything they wish if they are not required to provide proof to back up their claims. Anybody But Nader!

In a news release, state Democratic Chairman Jim Pederson said the Democratic party found "mounting evidence" that Nathan Sproul, a political consultant, "is the primary source of money" for paying petition circulators in support of the consumer advocate. Sproul, dismissed the claim as a "wild accusation that has no bearing in fact."

When Pederson was challenged to produce his "mounting evidence" he backed down and admitted that he had none! Pederson said he based his assertions on information he received from anonymous sources!

"Over the last several days, we have received information that strongly suggests a coordinated, highly funded secret effort by the Bush campaign, Christian right and others (to put Nader on the ballot)," the Democrats' statement said.

Nader's press secretary, Kevin Zeese, said the campaign knows of no connection between the petition drive and Republicans.

The Democratic party representative admitted he had no proof to back up his claim. But, I suppose we're are suppose to take as Gospel truth any and all claims about Ralph Nader and/or the Green Party without requiring proof.

You can be sure that some DLC'ers will now attack anyone who questions their policies or claims as being a "Naderite". It's a modern day version of red-baiting. It has the same goal. To silence, intimidate and isolate anyone who dares to dispute their political views and to end any democratic discussion and debate.

50 years ago those alleged "liberals" supported McCarthyism and the witch-hunt against "subversives". Today they support the Patriot Act.

[Killarney]

13. Link please?

Can you provide a link to your statement that Pederson said he had no evidence?

[Solidarity]

15. He Had None

Are you claiming such evidence exists? If it does, present it. But, I guess you like playing with words. He did not say "I'm claiming Nader's petitioning effort is being organized and paid for by the Republican party, however, I don't have the slightest shred of evidence to back it up. Trust me". That would have been a more honest statement but did you really expect him to say that?

If he does in fact have such evidence do you think he should present it? I do.

I have a feeling that your really not interested in the truth but would rather engage in or support slander campaigns in order to advance the DLC agenda. I hope I'm wrong. Am I?

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0608nader08.html

[Killarney]

16. Talk about being not interested in the truth!

Pot, meet kettle.

You bury your head in the sand at any insinuation that Nader is not the all-perfect, well-meaning God he is to you and that the Republicans aren't using Nader as a tool for their re-election.

Wake up.

[Solidarity]

17. What About The Other Big Conspiracy?

Talk about reading things into a post! You got all that from a simple statement that if there is evidence the Republican Party is funding and organizing Nader's Arizona ballot effort it should be produced?

I suppose you also believe the Reform Party's endorsement of Nader and Patrick Buchanan's interview of Ralph Nader is a super secret plot by John Kerry's campaign to have Nader take away votes from George Bush.

AAAhhhhhh .... paranoia seems to be spreading.

[Killarney]

20. No, I didn't get all that from your one post.

It was from all 400 of your posts. Because every single one of your posts is about how perfect Nader is and nothing negative about Nader could possibly be true. And if someone on DU here doesn't support Nader, then they are a part of the DLC and believe any and all conspiracy theories.

You're a one-trick pony. Every post, the same.

[tandot]

22. I agree with you, Killarney...

Sometimes I think he is from the "other" side posing as a Naderite to get us all worked up and convince us to vote for Nader.

[Solidarity]

26. Go Ahead And Bait

In 2002 I worked as a full-time staff member on the Democratic State Central Committee of California.

If that somehow makes me a Naderite so be it. Red-bait and Nader-bait me all you want. And if that doesn't work you can always claim I'm a right-wing supporter of Bush!

If you can't challenge, debate and intelligently discuss someones ideas you can always hurl insults and slanders. Right?

[tandot]

29. Sorry, but I've read quite a few of your posts and saw the word "slander"

used more often than you'd probably see in Ann Coulter's book.

Whenever someone on DU says something negative about Nader we can bet that one of your posts accuses us of slander. The truth is that Nader will NEVER ever become the President of the United States of America. Sorry if the truth hurts.

Sorry, but in my opinion, if you vote for Nader you are a supporter of Bush. And hence, if you support Bush you support his right-wing ideology. This is, of course, only my humble and slanderous opinion.

[Solidarity]

30. I Don't Have A Problem With People Who Argue Against Nader

I've never had a problem with anyone posting something negative about Ralph Nader. A negative comment about or reasoned argument against Ralph Nader's candidacy is hardly slander. I would expect nothing less from anyone who supports John Kerry's campaign. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all! But slanders and lies are an entirely different thing. Slander is simply slander no matter what the motivation behind it is.

Your suggestion that the nearly 3 million people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 were supporters of Bush is a bit off the mark. While it is true that some of those voters were registered Republicans, a majority were certainly registered Democrats and independents who were not won over by Al Gore. In any case, they were obviously not Bush supporters because all of them voted for George Bush!

If Nader voters were Bush supporters would it be fair to claim that Patrick Buchanan voters were Gore supporters in the last election. If the Supreme Court had not appointed Bush president, I suppose some Republicans could have whined that Buchanan "spoiled" the election because he "took away" votes from Bush in four states that Bush narrowly lost to Gore.

Now what about your assertion that "if you vote for Nader you are a supporter of Bush. And hence, if you support Bush you support his right-wing ideology. This is, of course, only my humble and slanderous opinion."

That opinion is not at all slanderous, perhaps humble and mistaken but certainly not slanderous. It isn't logical.

Bush supporters and right-wingers will be voting for George Bush. Why in the world would they vote for Ralph Nader? Bush is their candidate!

That has never been explained to my satisfaction, or anyones satisfaction for that matter.

Perhaps what you really mean to say is that John Kerry cannot convince all liberals and progressives to support his election and that some may therefor vote for Ralph Nader. They certainly won't vote for Bush. Is that what you mean?

If Ralph Nader, his supporters and Green Party activists are truly the right-wing Bushites they are painted as, why are you and others worried about liberals and progressives voting for Nader? It seems to me you'd be applauding his campaign hoping he'd "take away" lots of votes from Bush.

I'm not playing with words here. I'm really trying to understand the logic behind some of these arguments advanced. In all frankness, they just don't make sense to me!

[tandot]

31. I've never talked about the 2000 election.

I don't think any single one of those Nader supporters voted for him in 2000 because they wanted to have Bush elected. Actually, my boyfriend voted for Nader in 2000. But back then he lived in California and he knew that his vote was more to show the Democratic party that they should consider integrating some of Nader's policies.

The 2004 election is a totally different matter. Now we know what could happen. There are two choices to make this November: Kerry or Bush. It is as simple as that. There is no way in hell that either I or my boyfriend would waste a vote on Nader. There is NOTHING you can tell me about Nader that I am interested in. My main goal is to get Bush out of the White House.

Some of the "slanderous" comments probably stem from the fear of having 4 more years of Bush. That would be a disaster and I can fully understand people saying insulting things about Nader.

[Solidarity]

23. You Haven't Read My Posts

You clearly haven't read most, much less all, of my posts.

I've posted many times on many different political issues without mentioning Ralph Nader.

What really ticks you off is the fact that I have challenged those who have posted obvious slanders concerning Ralph Nader and/or the Green Party. We are suppose to believe whatever the DLC claims. And if we don't, I and others are branded as "communists" or "Naderites".

I reject any form of red-baiting on DU and wish you would too.

[sangh0]

25. "I reject any form of red-baiting on DU "

but "DLC-baiting" is OK with you.

[Killarney]

27. No, you're wrong.

That's not what ticks me off about you.

Challenging is that last adjective I would use to describe your posts. Baiting is closer to the truth. It seems like your sole purpose here is to bait people and start trouble. I seriously question your motives of being here.

[tandot]

14. Please support your claims with links. Thanks.

[Zero Gravitas]

24. Nader's VP

Cheney

[WhiteTara]

8. More Proof that Nadir will take GOP

Votes...er...Money in search of his Tweedle Dee Tweedle Dum
theory

[bushisanidiot]

12. Or Nader Will Probably Take Votes Away from Boy George too

some of those idiots will be so "pro-Nader" they'll vote for the guy thinking it'll hurt Kerry.. too stupid to realize they're hurting Bush. Yep, they ARE that stupid..

[tom_paine]

10. You know, during the Days of the Old Republic, this would just be

just some political shenanigans.

It's funny how a little thing like the Sovietization and Subjugation of Amerika gives everything a sinister bent.

[Delano]

18. What more will it take for Naderites to get the point?

If this doesn't make it obvious, I don't know what else we can say.

If Nader really cared about the country, he'd drop out now & endorse Kerry, in view of who DESPARATELY wants him on the ballot.

[Killarney]

21. They have their heads in the sand

[T Town Jake]

33. Agreed!

The choice this fall is Bush or Kerry--the Nader folks just don't seem to grasp that logic.

[Beatrix]

19. Old news

Greens were paying people to get signatures here in Texas months ago. I was asked by a friend to sign a petition, and he informed me he was getting paid. I told him it would be illegal for me to sign. He's a far left college liberal. Tried to tell him we couldn't risk losing this, but so long as he is doing this in texas it's not a problem.

[AlCzervik]

28. Just like the california recall

every time i would go to a store they had their little paid signature gatherers out front.