It's time to support Nader.

[Richard Schumacher]

Only if you want to help re-elect Bush and wipe out Nader's legacy of
environmentalism and consumer protection.

[Steve Krulick]

Richard Schumacher wrote:
>
> Only if you want to help re-elect Bush and wipe out Nader's legacy of
> environmentalism and consumer protection.

Ah, the Gorebot whiners from 2000 are back! Actually, they've
never gone away!

Unable to accept the failings of their sad nominee, who actually
WON the 2000 election but was too wimpy to fight for it, they
have to find scapegoats to take attention off their own denial.

Here's my standard response to Gorebots like this since 2000:

50 million Bush voters, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, the SCotUS,
and Gore's incompetence put Bush in the White House.

All the math, polls, logic, common sense, and other evidence
that has been presented to date won't move GoreWhores in denial
from their asinine nonsense position.

Hey, Al From, Mr. DLC himself, has called off the
Nader-bashing. Take a hint:

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2001/2001L-01-24-15.html

DLC DISPUTES SIGNIFICANCE OF NADER'S VOTES

"The assertion that Nader's marginal vote count hurt Gore is not
borne out by polling data," Al From [DLC founder and CEO] wrote
in the DLC's report. "When exit pollers asked voters how they
would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a
point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."

[More proof that Nader HELPED Gore win the election!]

Even DLC-head From admits that without Nader in the race, Bush
would have done even BETTER, and probably WON outright!
Nader-supporters switching to Gore at the last moment, in the
MILLIONS, actually helped GORE WIN, which Gore then fumbled.
You're welcome, ingrate!

Or do you deny Gore WON the election? HIS refusal to fight for
his win rather than cave to bipartisan collegiality MAKES him a
traitor to the cause of Democracy and Enfranchisement. Again, I
would have been unhappy with whoever won the election, but,
dammit, Gore probably won and having the selection STOLEN
rankles me more than apparently it rankles Gore himself.

It's as if we, as a group, threw a 100-foot rope to a drowning
Gore 102 feet away, yet Gore made no attempt to MOVE the two
feet closer necessary to GRAB it, but YELLED at us for not
having thrown a 102-foot rope, and then blamed US for his going
under.

Thanks to GoreWhore fear-mongering, perhaps 5 MILLION Nader
supporters held their nose and voted for Gore. And what did they
get for their efforts? A Gore who bashed them and Nader, and who
didn't even stand up to claim that voters who GAVE him the
plurality were disenfranchised. What a wimp! I bet many now wish
they'd voted for Nader after all.

And I thought we might have seen the last of the sore, hard-core
GoreWhore corps!

We know they were building up a scapegoating strategy against
Nader nearly a month before the election, but now, with the
true results aborted, they've conceded to a coup and made Nader
the fallguy! Nevermind the ingratitude for the millions of votes
they DID manage to scare Nader voters into tossing to Gore;
nothing but total destruction of Nader and the Greens will
satisfy their denial and anger.

IF the Dems spent half as much time attacking the Reps as they
do the Greens, they might get somewhere. IF they spent as much
time chastising the 10%+ of registered DEMS who VOTED FOR BUSH
(13% in Florida) -- 10-15 times the number of Dems who voted for
Nader, far outweighing any perceived "Nader factor" in
determining ANY losses Gore suffered in any state he might have
carried -- they might be taken more seriously. If they copped to
the Party's failure to pick a likable and believable candidate,
the consultants' failure to mount a competent campaign, and
Gore's monumental failures to beat the least qualified Prez
candidate in a century, that honesty might get them back on the
road to recovery from their denial.

GORE defeated Gore, and bears perhaps 75% of the blame
personally; allow 15% for dumb consultants and a
corporate-whoring DLC and the Clinton fatigue; the other 10%
includes thousands of random factors, from Bush kissing Oprah,
to the weather in different locations on election day.

But blame Nader? Focus on one tiny factor among thousands? Hey,
blame the 50 million fools who voted for Bush, including 10%+ of
registered Dems who voted for Bush. YOUR man Gore failed to get
enough people to buy HIS BS over Bush's BS to make it the
slam-dunk it should have been.

Can you explain again how MY vote for Nader in New York put Bush
in office?

No matter how you spin it, that's Orwellian double-speak.

I will give you $1000 if you can show how MY vote in New York
for Nader put Bush in office.

Some exit polls, nationwide, showed perhaps 40% MIGHT have voted
for Gore, 40% for another alternate party candidate or nobody,
and 20% for Bush, which votes MUST be deducted from Gore,
leaving, at best, Gore GAINING 1 in 5 Nader votes that WERE cast
for Nader. (Another poll said 40% might have gone to Gore, 30%
to nobody or another 3rd party, 30% to Bush.) What isn't
considered is that Nader was polling 2 to 3 times his final vote
(assuming that final vote is accurate, and isn't short by the
Nader votes "disappeared" or ignored) just days before the
election, so that 1/2 to 2/3 of Nader supporters (estimated at 5
million MORE than ACTUALLY voted for Ralph) ALREADY sacrificed
their hopes, gave into their fears, held their nose and voted
for Gore. But THAT wasn't enough for the greedy GoreWhores, who
shrieked that EVERY Nader vote NOT cast for Gore would be HELD
RESPONSIBLE for each and every hypothetical Bush travesty.

No, 13 TIMES as many Dems in FL voted for BUSH than voted for
Nader (which votes didn't contribute to Bush's total count
against Gore a single vote)! THAT'S where your blame and anger
should be directed!

We're talking ACTUAL numbers of ACTUAL votes cast, and the
numbers show that Nader voters gave NO votes to Bush's total,
but 13% of Dems in Florida, and at least 10% nationwide, voted
FOR BUSH, which was enough to give Bush the margin of victory in
every state that Gore had a chance at and lost.

Nader's BEING in the race helped prevent Gore from losing to
Bush outright. Nader is NOT responsible for Bush being in the
White House. Of course, From and the DLC/DNC will NEVER cop to
it being mostly GORE'S fault and THEIR fault, but they at least
now have let Nader off the hook as being THE fall guy to pin it
on. Take a hint, Gorebot!

Hey, argue with CNN who provided the poll data; this is from
CNN's exit polls, first national:
http://a388.g.akamai.net/f/388/21/15m/www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html

Vote in Two-Way Race All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Gore 48 % 96 % 1 % 0 % 2 %
Bush 49 % 2 % 96 % 0 % 1 %
Would Not Have Voted 2 % 23 % 28 % 9 % 31 %

And this from Florida:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/FL/P000.html

Vote in Two-Way Race All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Gore 47 % 97 % 1 % 0 % 1 %
Bush 49 % 1 % 96 % 0 % 1 %
Would Not Have Voted 2 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

And this from New Hampshire, another state where people claim
Nader not being in the race would have given it to Gore. Not so:

Vote in Two-Way Race All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Gore 47 % 95 % 1 % 0 % 3 %
Bush 48 % 3 % 95 % 0 % 2 %
Would Not Have Voted 4 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

(I don't know why the would-not-have-voted columns drop to 0% in
the state races, unless they just left out that data. But the
key point is that, nationally, and in two close races, BUSH
clearly beats Gore IF Nader is not in the race. I presume that
this is the data that Al From is quoting from. Do you have a
problem with "independent media" CNN and their polls?)

In addition to CNN and other previous polls I've mentioned:

Stanley Greenberg's poll found that if Nader had not run, Gore
would have gotten only 38 percent of Nader's voters and Bush
would have gotten 25 percent. (Most of the rest would have
stayed home.)

YOU'D love to assume every vote Nader got came out of Gore's
hide, and there's no evidence of that; indeed the available
evidence shows that Gore wouldn't even have gotten the majority
of those. But "logic dictates" that EVERY Dem who voted for Bush
was a vote Gore should have been able to count on; but whether
or not that was so, it was certainly a vote NOT given to Gore
BUT given to his strongest opponent, the eventual "winner," and
THAT was why Gore didn't win outright.

I have CNN exit polls as my evidence; let's parse Florida
(http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/FL/P000.html):

Party Identification All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader

Democrat 40 % 86 % 13 % 0 % 1 %
Republican 38 % 8 % 91 % 0 % 1 %
Independent 22 % 47 % 46 % 1 % 4 %

If Gore got 2,907,451 votes, and that represents 86% of
REGISTERED Dems who voted, than the number of registered Dems
would be close to 3,380,757 (2,907,451/.86). So 439,498 Dems in
FL defected to Bush.

Approx. 33,808 Dems voted for Nader in FL, and approx. 31,969
Reps voted for Nader in FL (2,909,176 Reps for Bush/.91 =
3,196,896 registered Reps X .01 for Nader). So in the end, Nader
votes drew almost equally from Dems and Reps, with an almost
equal number of votes, approx. 96,837 total Nader FL votes
-33,808 -31,969 = 31,060, coming from Inds.

And before the Dems moan about the 1,839 difference that MIGHT
have given Gore the win, IF Nader had not been a factor,
wouldn't 13% of the 33,808 Dems who voted for Nader followed the
other 13% of Dems and voted for Bush, or 4,395 Dems for Bush?
Likewise, wouldn't the 8% of Reps for Gore be applicable with
this group, or 8% of the 31,969 Reps who voted for Nader, or
2,558 Reps for Gore? Adding these in to the totals we get 1,837
additional vote advantage for Bush, which statistically erases
the 1,839 votes difference favoring Gore at first glance. This
leaves independent voters, who voted evenly for Gore and Bush,
and some Buchanan votes who made up any difference.
Statistically, this is a dead heat, too close to call, and no
way to reach any conclusions about Nader being a factor.

But more important, 2 to 3 times as many votes as Nader
finally GOT were votes that WOULD have likely gone for Nader
had not Gore's fear-mongering drumbeat already peeled them back
ON election day, or the race had not been seen as so close
(polling for Nader was as high as 6-7% one week before the
election). So where's the Dem gratitude for the tens of
thousands (maybe 100,000 to 200,000) of Green-leaning votes that
abandoned Nader, held their nose, and went to Gore and
TECHNICALLY won him the White House? Yes, people who preferred
Nader but wound up voting for Gore DID help give Gore the margin
that gave him BOTH the national and Florida popular vote
pluralities, but Gore and his Whores refuse to back off from
blaming Nader, yet make nice-nice with the Bush team that STOLE
the election!

439,498 Dems voted for Bush, and only 255,752 Reps voted for
Gore. That's a 183,746 difference that WAY outweighs any
influence by Nader, Buchanan, Hagelin, the communists or
whomever, COMBINED. Votes for Nader added NO votes to Bush, but
183,746 MORE Dems voted for Bush than Reps voted for Gore.
There's your election for ya... DOUBLE Whammy votes lost from
Gore and added to Bush FROM DEMOCRATS! So I don't want to hear
ANY more whining from Dems about Nader costing Gore the election
in Florida or ANYWHERE until I hear the same whiners blaming the
DEM TRAITORS who actually voted FOR BUSH in FAR greater numbers
EVERYWHERE.

So drop it already. Or refute the numbers.

The Dems may want to learn the lesson of not picking a lame
candidate that people didn't trust or like.

Many of us expected that Gore, a sitting two-term VP under a
popular president (subject to debate), in a booming economy
(subject to debate), during peacetime (subject to debate), would
whip a smirking, squinty-eyed, ex-cocaine-user, ex-drunk
(subject to debate if he's still ex), AWOL-from-National-Guard
shirker, "compassionate" killer of blacks, women, and
mentally-retarded teens, sentence-mangling doofus sock-puppet
privileged son of a sentence-mangling political hack privileged
father, failed businessman corporate welfare king, with the
slimmest resume of any presidential candidate in 100 years.

Neither can anyone explain how a vote cast for one candidate,
Nader, magically appears on the vote total of another candidate,
Bush. But, there it was -- AVFNIAVFB -- in all it's Orwellian
glory! Repeated ad nauseum until even seasoned media pundits
began to buy it. But if you buy the logic of AVFNIAVFB, then why
not accept the logic that a Dem actually voting for Bush is
TWICE the damage: one loss from Gore's column, one vote more
needed to make it up; one added vote in Bush's column, one vote
more needed to catch up. TWO outside votes needed to equal the
damage here, see?

So how come AVFNIAVFB? As Dave Letterman said: "If a vote for
Nader is a vote for Bush, who do I vote for if I want to vote
for Nader?"

I'm waiting for you or anyone to explain the simple math: MY NY
vote was NEVER in Gore's column, nor did it wind up in Bush's.
So how did I help Bush? But a Dem who SHOULD have supported his
party's candidate but votes instead for Bush, is one less Gore
vote that should have been there, and one vote ADDED to Bush's
total; it hurts Gore by one down, and helps Bush by one up. Is
that so hard to grasp?

The only people HERE who "helped elect Bush" would be those
who VOTED for Bush; only THEIR Bush votes were tallied up in
Bush's column. It is patently illogical to claim that anyone
else (except Supreme Court Justices, of course, and Jeb and
Katherine) "helped elect Bush.":

I say again: Not one Nader vote added a single vote to Bush's
column; it was identical to staying home, or voting for another
third-party candidate.

What about people who voted for Hagelin, Buchanan, Browne,
McReynolds, etc.?

Shouldn't your new mantra be: "Voting for anyone other
than Gore was a vote for Bush"?

Also, what about the 100 million who didn't vote at all;
aren't they to blame for not blocking Bush? There are far more
of them not voting for Gore than Greens not voting for Gore.
Shouldn't that be your NEW, new mantra: "Not voting was a
vote for Bush"?

IF every Florida vote for the Socialist, or Hagelin, had
"gone" to Gore, Gore would have won outright! So blame them;
they cost Gore the election as much (or little) as Nader. Why
won't you blame them? Or the Dem traitors who DID vote for Bush?
Or the non-voters? OR the prisoners or ex-offenders who COULDN'T
vote thanks to Clinton/Gore's own policies?

If you want to blame those who put Repub Bush in power, blame
Jeb & Katherine, the SCOTUS, and Gore himself, for running the
lousiest campaign in memory, and for being too clever by half in
the post election fight by NOT calling for a complete hand
recount.

The blizzard of "librils" Gore flung around the country to
strike FEAR into Nader voters, to get the 1 or 2% those votes
represent to switch to Gore, and do nothing to win back the 11%
DEMOCRAT defection to Bush, or go after 10% undecideds, or the
100 million NON-VOTING registered voters, was clearly an endgame
strategy to let Nader be the fallguy and Green voters the
scapegoats. Since Al lost his homestate Tennessee, where
Nader is no factor, this blame-game is going to be a harder sell
than even Gore himself was. But you'll do it anyway, because you
can't admit it was GORE that defeated himself in Tennessee and
elsewhere.

Remember, Gore DID take Florida. He WON with more votes. It's in
all the papers. Nader supporters HELPED Gore WIN in Florida and
nationwide by helping his floundering campaign at the last
minute. (You're welcome.) THEN Gore wimped out on them all by
conceding without a real fight. He ran his POST-election
campaign as stupidly as his PRE-election campaign, making
tactical and PR blunders again and again.

Bush's stealing the election was NOT fought by Gore or the Dems;
not ONE white Dem senator or rep backed the black caucus's call
to reject the Florida results, and Gore abandoned them as well.
Nice going.

Did Nader cause Gore to lose his OWN state of Tennessee? Or
cause Gore to so distance himself from Clinton that he also lost
Arkansas? What about Dem strongholds like WV? GORE defeated
Gore, plain and simple.

Better come up with an excuse for the 11% of the DEM PARTY who
BOLTED to VOTE FOR BUSH! That's 11% OFF Gore's expected total
PLUS 11% ADDED to Bush, for a 22% Double Whammy! There's your
margin of loss TIMES THREE!

Why bother with the piddling little Green Vote? I and my fellow
Greens were under no obligation to support YOUR party's
candidate; we didn't pick him, and he didn't think we were
important enough to let play in his "debate" sandbox.

Just keep repeating: "It's NAAAAAAADER's fault"... that a HUGE
proportion of the American people actually voted FOR Bush! Just
ignore math and logic and ANY position can be defended.

People just didn't LIKE or TRUST Gore; but make Nader the
scapegoat.

Rather than ever give us a POSITIVE reason to support Gore, you
tried to tear down the opposition. Great way to make friends and
influence people. Sow hate and fear, and reap the whirlwind.

BUT if your goal is to set up Nader as the fallguy, and Nader
voters and Greens as the scapegoat to blame for Gore's defeat,
well, then it all makes perfect sense.

No, gorebot, YOU just want to wallow in denial and focus on one
of the minor 'banana peels' as Nader called them, instead of the
BIG factors, like 10-13% of Dems nationwide voting for Bush. Is
Nader to blame for THOSE votes too? Is Nader to blame for
everything from the Johnstown Flood onward?

Even DLC-head From admits that without Nader in the race, Bush
would have done even BETTER, and probably WON outright!
Nader-supporters switching to Gore at the last moment, in the
MILLIONS, actually helped GORE WIN, which Gore then fumbled.
You're welcome, ingrate!

Yep, Gore WON! He won more popular votes in enough states
INCLUDING Florida to assure an electoral college win. Only he
tried to be too clever by half, and instead of demanding a FULL
state manual recount, he tried to cherry pick the counties,
which gave the Bush team the opening to go to the SCotUS and
outmaneuver the recount. Gore knew of the thousands of likely
voters thrown off the rolls illegally, but didn't contest it
when he could have. And he didn't fight after the election to
demand the irregularities and biases were exposed. Gore won the
election, but took a dive afterwards, proving he didn't deserve
the job or have the balls to do the tough stuff a president
must.

Why Nader is NOT to Blame
by Tim Wise
AlterNet November 8, 2000

Well, the long knives are out. Media pundits, Democratic Party
officials, and I would suspect Al Gore himself before long, have
or will soon begin to do the predictable: search out a scapegoat
for why the Presidential election turned out the way it did.
With Gore having won the popular vote, and yet having apparently
lost in the electoral college, there will be a cacophony of
voices saying some constructive things -- like discussing the
need for an instant runoff/preference voting system that would
better reflect the will of the American public -- but also
blaming the victory of George W. Bush squarely on the shoulders
of the Green Party and Ralph Nader.

It had begun even before midnight: television talking heads
exclaiming that if Gore lost, the blame could be laid at the
door of Nader and those presumed liberals and leftists that
flocked to his campaign. Few commentators challenged this
analysis, and by the morning after -- as we await recounts in
Florida that will determine the outcome -- it has become
conventional wisdom that Nader did indeed cost Gore the
election, by swinging Oregon, Florida, and perhaps even New
Hampshire to Bush II.

Such is the sorry state of political analysis, not to mention
statistical interpretation, and such is the pathetic state of
the Democratic Party: so desperate to avoid admitting its own
mistakes that it would prefer to attack a large segment of its
progressive base, chastising them like misbehaving children, as
if somehow that will bring them back to the fold. Not likely.
And not a very smart move.

Most importantly, the Blame-Nader first school is wrong, dead
wrong about who is to blame for Gore's slim electoral defeat.
Here's why:

First, the notion that Nader voters would all have voted for the
Vice President in the absence of their favorite from the race,
is nonsense. CNN exit polls show that only about 47 percent of
the Nader voters would have voted for Gore in a two way race,
while 21 percent would have voted for Bush and 30 percent would
have abstained from voting in the Presidential contest
altogether.

This is significant, especially in New Hampshire and Oregon,
where some are saying the Nader vote was the difference.

Looking at New Hampshire first, it is true that Bush's margin of
victory was only about 7,500 votes, and that Nader received
about 22,000 votes there. But based on the exit polling data, if
Nader hadn't been in the race, only a little less than half of
those Nader votes would have gone to Gore, and a fifth would
have gone to Bush, so that in the end, Bush would have still won
New Hampshire by about 1500 votes in all.

In Oregon, where it is a virtual article of religious faith that
Nader is to blame for the Bush victory, the hype is once again
overblown and flatly wrong. Yes, Bush won the state by a margin
of only about 23,000 votes, and Nader received the votes of
54,000. But once again, based on the exit polls, had the race
been only between Gore and Bush, Gore would have gotten 47
percent of those 54,000, for a total of around 25,400, Bush
would have received 21 percent of those 54,000, for a total of
about 11,300, and in the end, Bush would still have squeaked out
a victory, by about 8,000 votes.

Which brings us to Florida. If ever there was a case to make
that Nader had been the spoiler for Gore, it would be here,
where the election will likely be decided by less than 2,000
votes. Clearly, one could look at Nader's 97,000 votes there and
say, with a degree of certainty approaching definitive, that had
Nader not been in the race, Gore would have beaten Bush among
Nader voters by a two to one margin, and that would have been
enough to capture Florida's 25 electoral college votes and
catapult him to the Presidency.

It is this fact which has me anticipating a degree of vitriol,
finger-pointing and Nader bashing truly beyond anything we have
seen thus far from the Democrats. And I fear that some in the
Nader camp may fall for it, and come to regret their decision to
vote for an alternative to this broken two-party system. But
they shouldn't, and here's why:

Think about this election the way you would any other
competition: perhaps, a football game. Just a few days ago, for
example, I watched as my hometown team, the Tennessee Titans,
beat the Pittsburgh Steelers thanks to a field goal in the
closing seconds of the game. Now, needless to say, if the Titans
kicker misses that field goal, the Steelers win 7-6. If he makes
it, we win 9-7. It would have been easy to say -- and
predictable and even true at one level -- that if Al Del Greco
misses that field goal, he is to blame, and the outcome was the
result of that missed kick.

But then again, one could also look back at the entire game and
find a number of other things, which, had the Titans done them
right, the game wouldn't have come down to that kick in the
first place, and so those things could just as logically be seen
as the problem. An interception at a crucial moment, a fumble,
or a penalty flag that hurt an offensive drive. Any one of those
things goes differently, and the Titans have more than enough
points at the end of the game, and don't need the 3 points that
Del Greco can give them. They can just run out the clock and hit
the showers as winners.

The same is true in the presidential contest. Sure, if Nader
isn't running, a plurality of his voters goes to Gore, and he
wins Florida. But taking that singular fact to be the key
factor, and making it, in effect, the missed field goal by Gore
as the clock runs out, is silly. There were, as with the Titans
game, plenty of other factors that could have and should have
gone Gore's way in Florida, but because they didn't, Nader
became a factor. And whose fault is that?

Consider this: Gore lost in Florida among white women (many of
those soccer moms who Clinton carried, and many of whom would
normally have been reached by a Democratic candidate talking
about education, health care, abortion, and other key issues) by
a 52-45 margin, with the Nader factor being negligible among
this group. And he lost among seniors, a group that rightly
should have been concerned about Bush's plans to partially
privatize social security: a plan that twelve years ago rendered
Pierre DuPont (the only Republican willing to float the concept)
an asterisk in American political history, and a laughingstock.
Here too, among the traditionally Democratic constituency of
seniors, the Nader factor was negligible.

Even more to the point, Bush received the votes of 12 times more
Democrats than Nader did, and 5.25 times more self-identified
liberals than Nader did in Florida, indicating that progressive
voters and those who might have been seen as a natural lock for
Gore, actually were stolen not by the Greens, but by the
Republicans.

Now folks, when your base is more likely to vote for George W.
Bush than Ralph Nader, this not only is bad news for Nader, but
also makes quite clear that Gore -- not Nader -- is to blame for
his loss in Florida. In all, 19 percent of voters there
described themselves as liberal. If Nader got 3 percent of
these, this represents a little less than 6/10ths of the overall
popular vote that could have been "taken" from Gore by Nader
voters on the left: those who are being blamed for Gore's
defeat. But if 16 percent of liberals voted for Bush (which they
did, for some reason), this represents 3 percent of the total
popular vote "stolen" from Gore by Bush voters on the left. That
3 percent is more than the Nader total in Florida, which was 2
percent.

The same thing happened in Oregon, where Bush outpolled Nader
among Democrats by a margin of 3.5 to 1, and where Bush took 43
percent more of the self-described liberals than Nader. And in
New Hampshire, where Bush took six times more Dems from Gore
than Nader did, and twice as many self-described liberals.

What all this means is simple: Al Gore has no one to blame but
himself, and his inability to rally voters sufficiently around
his watered-down agenda and lackluster campaign. Gore actually
lost nationwide among voters who said they prioritized world
affairs, despite the fact that Bush would be hard-pressed to
name a small fraction of world leaders, and has no foreign
policy experience whatsoever. And just to make clear that Nader
was not Gore's Achilles heel, consider this: nationally, Bush
got twice as many self-described liberals as Nader did, over
seven times more Clinton voters than Nader did, and among those
who said "government should do more" (a typically
liberal/progressive position statement), Bush took eight times
more of these natural Democratic voters than did Nader.

Of course, it should not be necessary to say any of this. It
should be obvious that when an incumbent Vice-President, in an
administration that is generally given high marks for the state
of the economy, and who serves in time of relative world peace,
can't defeat a man who is probably the least qualified, weakest
Republican nominee in the past 36 years, there is something
amiss -- and it isn't the third party candidate.

Keep in mind, 66 percent of the American public says the nation
is on the right track. That is significantly more than said this
same thing in 1996, when only a little over half felt that way.
And yet, when almost half the population thought the nation was
not headed in the right direction, Bill Clinton was able to put
together a landslide victory. Meanwhile, Gore, with two-thirds
of the public happy about the direction of the country, appears
to have lost. How could that possibly be the fault of Ralph
Nader?

And of course, had Gore carried his own home state, along with
either Clinton's home state of Arkansas or the traditional
Democratic stronghold of West Virginia, then Florida would be an
irrelevancy.

But don't look for that kind of honesty from the Democratic
Party, or Democrat-friendly spinmeisters in the media. When in
doubt, they always look left for a scapegoat, when the real
culprit for their troubles is looking back at them from the
mirror.

So don't believe the hype. If you voted for Nader, don't feel
guilty or conflicted for one minute. And don't mourn, organize!
After all, the next President of the United States will be the
weakest in decades, unable to get away with the right-wing plans
about which we have been warned. And the Democrats, though we
might not have actually cost them the election, have been put on
notice. They can no longer ignore the voices of those committed
to democratic (small-d) principles.

You might as well blame the 100 million non-voters, any few
thousand of them in a select few states could have changed the
outcome... IF you knew in advance which states, and which
amounts. That over HALF the Nader supporters held their noses at
the last minute and voted for Gore, which INSURED Gore's victory
(Gore DID win, or don't you agree?), means that Nader supporters
helped GORE WIN. YOU'RE WELCOME, INGRATE!

The Greens have been shouting to the Dems NOT to roll over and
cave in to the Repubs on everything, but the Dems refused to
listen, over and over.

THEY, the Dems, are the guilty ones, NOT the messengers who were
ignored.

But you go on blaming the victim who fights for the good, and
ignore the co-dependent "lesser" evil ones who "enable" the
greater evil to have its way. I don't hear you
chastising Lieberman or the dozens of other gung-ho Dems on this
one, or who OK'd Ashcroft and the gang.

--
Steven Krulick / s...@krulick.com
Ellenville NY 12428-130727

[cc]

In article <405EE8E3...@thank-you.com>, no-...@thank-you.com says...

> Only if you want to help re-elect Bush and wipe out Nader's legacy of
> environmentalism and consumer protection.
>
>

wise up, Nader support is from Republicans

[Steve Krulick]

Do you mean that more disgruntled Republicans will leave Bush to
vote for and support Nader than newly-unified Dems will bail
from Kerry? That's Nader's claim, and, with Dems out of power,
seems quite plausible.

Or are you suggesting that Nader is receiving under-the-table
financial support from the Republican Party, its leaders, or
major backers? If so, please provide any proof to support this
blatant assertion of your unsubstantiated libelous opinion.

Meanwhile, deal with this:

[John Graeme]

cc <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ac8992a5...@netnews.comcast.net>...

Wise up, the difference between Kerry and Bush is like the difference
between horseshit and cowshit.

[mhirtes]

In article <787f8b2d.04032...@posting.google.com>,
jdgr...@my-deja.com (John Graeme) wrote:

And you apparently have a lump of both between your ears if you actually
beleive that Kerry is as bad as Bush.

[Bob]

"mhirtes" <m...@nospambots.com> wrote in message
news:mh-65E0C2.04...@news.central.cox.net...

> > Wise up, the difference between Kerry and Bush is like the difference
> > between horseshit and cowshit.
>
> And you apparently have a lump of both between your ears if you actually
> beleive that Kerry is as bad as Bush.

I am not happy with Bush's handling of domestic issues
but I have seen nothing that Kerry is proposing that
would move me to support him. When it comes to
the most important job of a president, the security
of our nation, Kerry is dangerous.

[Server 13]

"Bob" <n...@email.address> wrote in message
news:Iph8c.51405$zP2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

Bush attacked the wrong country and turned it into a petri dish for Al
Qaeda, and KERRY is dangerous?

When it comes to what he will NOT propose, he's light years ahead of
BushCo.

[dkat]

Fool
Plonk

"John Graeme" <jdgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:787f8b2d.04032...@posting.google.com...

[Steve Krulick]

dkat wrote:
>
> Fool

So you blatatnly opine. I note that you don't offer any
substantiation to support your claim, either about the poster or
about any difference between Kerry and Bush.

Consider and respond to the following:

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank03182004.html

Democracy is for everyone. And if liberals and progressives do
decide to hold their nose and pull the lever for John Kerry,
they better be able to consciously handle the ramifications of
their pragmatic choice if he's victorious. Here is a short list
for which they'll need redemption:

* A continued US endorsement of Israel's illegal occupation of
Palestinian territories.

* A US supported occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

* A continued adherence to neoliberal policies throughout the
free market world.

* An American health care system controlled and run by private
corporations.

* An increase in the level of income disparity among rich and
poor citizens in the US.

* And an almost exponential decline of the natural environment
and endangered species of North America. And much much more.

It is true that Ralph Nader may not be the answer to all that
ails us, but he is at this moment the only Presidential
candidate willing to challenge the status quo we call American
politics. A vote for John Kerry may amount to a vote against a
vile Bush administration, but it is also a vote cast in support
of a degraded structure that continues to ignore the majority of
the American people.

Perhaps the Green and Reform Parties are on to something, and
their support of Nader's candidacy could be done more in protest
than solidarity.

Regardless it would be wise for us to realize that Kerry is part
of the problem, not the solution.

Josh Frank can be reached at: frank_...@hotmail.com

> Plonk

Yes, that's easier than dealing with the substance.

In 2000, I said "Bush: very, very, very bad; Gore: very, very
bad. See the difference?" Kerry is somewhere between very bad
and very, very bad. See?

Here's some more:

Kerry vs. Kerry-lite

By Stephen Gowans
<http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/kerry.html>
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr. gowans/kerry.html

Some advice to politically Left Americans. Most of you will cast
a vote for John Kerry in November. There's not much doubt about
it. And the reason you'll be backing Kerry is (a) you assume
nothing could be worse than Bush, (b) the Democrats must be
marginally better, because…well, because they're Democrats, (c)
pressuring elites doesn't seem to be working and you can't think
of anything else to do to stop "Bush's" drive to war, and (d)
all those people who keep warning you about lesser evilism,
can't seem to come up with anything better. So Kerry's your man.
Oh sure, some of you admire Kucinich. Others even think well of
Nader. But you know Kerry's going to be your go-to-guy come
November.

Okay, fine. Leave it at that. When the time comes, head down to
the polling station, and cast your vote. But in the meantime,
shut up about it, because, just between you and me, you're
starting to look a little silly, twisting yourself into knots to
explain why it is that all the things you used to say about the
Democrats being the same as the Republicans, no longer apply.

Of course, you're not going to give up talking the talk, even if
you'll be miles away walking smack dab in the middle of your
comfort zone. There will be no going cold turkey on all the
leftist shibboleths you've been spouting for decades. Like Noam
Chomsky, you'll still point to the Democrats as nothing more
than the second business party [1], kind of like Thing Two to
the Republican's Thing One. And you'll dismiss your go-to-guy as
nothing more than Bush-lite, but hey, a lite beer's still better
than the real thing when you're trying to get rid of those love
handles, right?

Except I'm trying to figure out why everyone keeps saying Kerry
is Bush-lite [2], rather than Bush in a different suit, or that
Bush is Kerry-lite. Look at Kerry's record.

For one thing, as much as Bush, Kerry's part of the ruling class
– that privileged, hyper-rich stratum of the population that
organizes the domestic and foreign policy of the United States
in its own interests. Not only have corporations showered more
contributions on Kerry than on any other member of the
millionaires' club that doubles as the Senate, he's also the
richest millionaire in the club. He and his wife Teresa Heinz
Kerry, boast a net worth of between $200 and $840 million [3].

But Kerry's wealth and his fitting into corporate circles like a
CEO into an oversize corner office, isn't all that makes him, at
best, a dead ringer for Bush. His policies do, too. Kerry
proposes "a bold vision of progressive internationalism," a
"tough-minded strategy of international engagement and
leadership" in the tradition of such renowned peaceniks as
Woodrow Wilson (WWI), Harry Truman (Hiroshima) and John F.
Kennedy (Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs) [4].

Which may be why "Bush's" drive to war, which we're told, must
be stopped by voting for Kerry, seems to be Kerry's drive to
war, too [5]. After all, he voted for the war on Afghanistan,
and supports the occupation [6]. He voted for the war on Iraq,
and says "we now have a solemn obligation to complete the
mission" [7]. He promises to add 40,000 troops to the Army and
to spend more on defense than the Republicans, and more on
homeland security [8]. Yeah, he sure sounds different from Bush,
though not in any better way.

What's more, not only is he prepared to use military force
unilaterally, ("People will know I'm tough and I'm prepared to
do what is necessary to defend the United States of America, and
that includes the unilateral deployment of troops if necessary,"
[9] he's prepared "to target and capture terrorists even before
they act" and says he "will not hesitate to order direct
military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist
groups and their leaders" [10] -- his own doctrine of preventive
war.

Plus he says he will spend more on the National Endowment for
Democracy [11], an organization that does openly what the CIA
used to do covertly -- meddle in the affairs of countries like
Haiti, Venezuela, Serbia and Cuba, that put the interests of the
domestic population ahead of those of corporate America and
investors who can boast net worths of hundreds of millions of
dollars, like, let's see...well, like Kerry.

And in case you thought Kerry draws his advisors from a
different stratum of the population than Bush does, you should
know that his national finance chair, Louis Susman, is
vice-chairperson of investment banking for Citigroup [12], and
that his foreign policy adviser, Rand Beers, worked for Bush's
National Security Council until about a year ago [13]. So
explain to me how there's anything lite about Kerry?

My favorite Kerry quote is, "I could never agree with those in
the antiwar movement who dismissed our troops [in Vietnam] as
war criminals or our country as the villain in the drama" [14].

As for Iraq, if Kerry has a problem with Bush, it's that he
didn't drag France, Germany and Russia into the war, preferring
to strike a grabby, it's all mine, pose, rather than the "let's
divide up the loot" approach the Democrats favor. Apparently, a
gang rape is better than a rape carried out by a lone assailant,
which, I gather, would make a gang rapist a rapist-lite, and
therefore more worthy of our backing than a rapist who goes it
alone.

But, for the record, Washington hasn't gone it alone in Iraq,
managing to cobble together a coalition, though one lacking
France, Germany and Russia, whose backing, in some perverted
twist of reasoning, is supposed to have invested the rape of
Iraq with legitimacy. Apparently, if you can lure other renowned
rapists into a gang rape, it gives the whole sordid affair moral
weight. So, you'll have to excuse me, but I don't see any
redeeming difference between Kerry and the current Kerry-lite
occupant of the White House, not even a razor-thin one, at least
not one that would lead me to conclude that Kerry's better, if
only marginally. And if there's any logic in the Chomsky claim
-- which he's been making for a while now -- that a minuscule
difference can make a big difference (because the president has
so much power, Kerry being even a little better than Bush can
have fairly substantial implications), I'm afraid it has eluded
me, as well. Is it just me, or is Chomsky staring to sound like
those corporate PR flaks, who rather than not even trying to
claim black is white, figure their forensic skills are so finely
honed, that they can pull it off?

And has Michael Parenti, another high-profile American leftist,
joined the club? Of course, he has. He, along with Chomksy and a
gaggle of other left luminaries, wrote a "letter to the left"
sometime late last year, that attributed the drive to war to
Bush [15], as if wars of aggression haven't been a fixture of US
foreign policy, and have suddenly sprung to life fully formed
under the Bush administration's careful nurturing. They coyly
avoided saying that the Left should vote Democrat in the next
election, but the message was plain, and odd, coming from a
number of people who say they're radicals, but then, maybe the
meaning of radical changes in "times when you have to pursue
coalition politics against the forces like the kind we're facing
in the White House today" [16].

Not so many years ago -- four to be exact -- pursuing coalition
politics wasn't deemed to be so important. Back then Michael
Moore was directing a Rage Against the Machine video that
depicted Al Gore as a clone of George Bush, and he, and a whole
bunch of other US Left luminaries, were exhorting people to vote
for the anti-clone, Nader, none more zealously than Moore
himself. But what made impeccable sense back then, now seems to
make no sense at all. Nader's been dumped faster than a date
with active genital herpes, and Moore slunk back to the
Democrats soon after the election, his self-imposed estrangement
from his political home passed off as temporary insanity.
Eventually, he decided to back the real Butcher of Belgrade,
Wesley Clark, for a run at the Democratic nomination, touting a
war criminal, on record as supporting the rape of Iraq, as the
peace candidate the anti-war Left could really get behind.

My logic isn't infallible, but it seems to me if we accept
Moore's claim that Al Gore is a clone of George W. Bush, then
Gore as president would have been like Bush as president. In
other words, there would have been a war on Afghanistan, which
seems pretty likely given that 99 percent of the establishment,
plus a fair number of liberals, think the whole affair was a
pretty good thing. And we can be sure Gore would have carried
out some kind of hostility against Iraq aimed at regime change,
since, after all, this had been the policy of two
administrations, one of which Gore belonged to. All of which
makes one wonder why Moore has decided, along with Chomsky and
Parenti, that coalition politics - - that is a vote for the
Democrats -- has suddenly become vitally important. It's as if
they're all kicking themselves for not voting for Gore when they
had the chance -- even if he is a clone of Bush. Figure that one
out. Maybe it's a poor grasp of logic. All of them talk about
the necessity of voting for the candidate most likely to defeat
the dangerous and repellent Bush, assuming quite unjustifiably
that his successor won't be equally or more dangerous and
repellent.

Radical, if it means anything, should refer to the root of a
problem, and given that aggressive foreign policies have been
pursued by every administration, and elsewhere in the world, by
governments of various political hues, it seems highly unlikely
that the drive to war is an anomaly of a group of people in
power. It seems far more likely to be systemic, and therefore,
the means to stop the drive to war must be systemic, as well.
And yet the word, radical, it would seem, now means acting to
replace one group of people drawn from the ruling class, who
seek to shape the international security order in line with US
export and investment interests, with another group of people
drawn from the same ruling class, who aim to exercise US power
boldly in the tradition of Wilson, Truman and Kennedy, to do the
same.

Parenti, who talks a militant leftist line, says elections
matter, but boasts that he coined the phrase "two-party
monopolies" when he wrote, "Democracy For the Few," [17] which
would kind of suggest Parenti was thinking that elections don't
matter and a vote for the Democrats equals a vote for the
Republicans, or if you extend the logic, that the drive to war
does not belong uniquely to the Republicans but is owned by the
monopoly. So you see elections don't matter, but they do matter.
Figure that one out. I can't decide whether Parenti's starting
to remind me of a guy who writes cryptic fortune cookie
fortunes, or a retired Sprite salesman who's been claiming for
the last four decades that Coke and Pepsi are the same, but has
just put in a call to the regional Pepsi sales office demanding
a Pepsi machine be installed outside his local public gym,
because all that's there now is a Coke machine, and he can't
stand the taste of Coke.

If the US, in Parenti's words, is a democracy for the few,
dominated by the super rich like Kerry and Kerry-lite, what
difference do elections make? At this point the exponents of the
view that elections matter (well, at least this election
matters) step forward and say, "Yes, but the Bush Republicans
are a particularly vicious wing of the ruling class, and while
the Democrats are only marginally better, they are better all
the same, and therefore any project that seeks to put a Democrat
in the White House is meliorative."

Let's ignore the reality that this is like saying death by
guillotine is better than death by hanging, because a hanging
death can be long, drawn out, and gruesome, whereas the
guillotine is swift and certain and marginally more humane. By
this reasoning we're supposed to support death by guillotine and
believe we've accomplished something if we thereby avoid the
hangman's noose. Either way, you end up with a nasty neck-ache,
though on the bright side, it only lasts for a fraction of a
second. But I'm not at all sure that the premise -- that the
Democrats are marginally better -- is sound.

It's a canard, really -- part of the mythology of the Democrats.
It may have been true seventy years ago, but you'd be hard
pressed to show how any Democrat in power has differed from
Republicans in power on economic or foreign policy since, and
certainly now. And yet the fairy tale lives on, invulnerable to
the facts. But then it serves a useful intellectual function -
keeping Americans of the political left from wrestling with a
vexing and troubling question: What the hell can we do, if we
can't vote Democrat? Join the Communist Party? No, they're
voting Democrat too.

What can be done, is to start to ask why it is that no matter
who's in power, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal,
and overseas, conservative or Socialist, foreign and economic
policy always seems to head in the same direction: foreign
policy is aggressive, and economic policy abets profit-making at
the expense of wages, working conditions and social security, as
it must. It doesn't seem to be the greed or ignorance or
viciousness of a group of people in power that accounts for this
uniformity of direction, any more than the greed or ignorance or
viciousness of CEOs account for layoffs, which isn't to say that
some CEO's aren't greedy or ignorant or vicious, only that it
doesn't matter whether they are.

It's like baseball. It doesn't matter what the players think of
the game, what their aims are, how they feel. All the matters is
how many runs are scored. If they underperform, they're benched,
sent down to the minors, or sent packing [18]. Imagine a CEO who
decides to keep workers on, at the expense of his company's
profits. He won't last long, suffering the corporate equivalent
of being pulled from the game, banished to the minors, or cut
loose from the team.

The same applies to leaders of governments in societies
integrated into the global capitalist system, dominated
materially and ideologically by the business community. If they
lean to the Left, chances are they rose to power by
progressively bartering away their principles for respectability
and votes [19]. They can be counted on to pursue corporate
interests at home and abroad. If by some unlikely confluence of
events, they have risen to power without first arriving at a
modus vivendi with the corporate class, their tenure is likely
to be short-lived, and unquestionably rocky. Which means they
too will end up like the baseball player who fails to add to the
tally of runs -- given a one-way ticket to the bush leagues, or
worst.

The news, in recent days, offers three examples of leaders who
have been sent, or may soon be sent, to the showers.

South Korea's President Roh Moo Hyun has been impeached for a
minor transgression, tantamount to being shot, according to Kim
Dong Yune, a Seoul-based political analyst, for a minor theft
[20]. Roh's real crime: He "came to power promising to be South
Korea's Robin Hood" and "has embraced a left-leaning agenda over
his year in office, including carving out a path more
independent of Washington, establishing warmer ties with North
Korea and China, and enacting new policies to empower the poor
and rein in the rich." Roh "levied more taxes on the rich while
spending billions of dollars on new government housing for the
poor," [21] something that will never secure him a spot in the
Baseball Hall of Fame.

Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide was forced from power by what was
almost certainly a US-engineered coup. He angered the business
community by raising the minimum daily wage beyond $1.30, and
failed to privatize state-owned enterprises, a definite no-no if
you expect to keep your place on the team roster.

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, once ousted in a short-lived US-backed
coup, hangs on to office despite the fierce opposition of
Washington and a domestic business class backed by contributions
from the National Endowment for Democracy. John Kerry questions
Chavez's commitment to democracy, noting that Chavez is a friend
of Fidel Castro [22]. By this reasoning, George Bush must be a
military dictator because the US government counts Pakistan's
Pervez Musharraf as an ally.

Chavez has implemented a program of land reform, imposed a ban
on oil privatization, invited Cuban doctors into Venezuela's
slums, and is using the state-owned oil firm, Pdvsa, to pursue a
social spending program. That's why Washington, and Venezuela's
wealthy, are trying to cut him loose from the team.

In a word, the problem -- and you had better send the kids out
of the room before I say this -- is capitalism. Yeah capitalism,
the C-word. Not neo-liberalism, or globalization, or the
Washington Consensus, or corporate rule, or any of the other
synonyms dreamed up to protect anyone from really striking at
the heart of the problem.

Radical Left groups say they're opposed to neo-liberalism and
against globalization. So are social democrats and a whole lot
of liberals, even if social democratic and liberal governments
have implemented neo-liberal policies. Like baseball players, it
doesn't mater what they think of the game, only whether they
play it. So, are some radical Leftists social democrats, or
nothing but liberals in disguise? Based on Chomsky's and
Parenti's support of Kerry, it's difficult to think they're not.

But if capitalism is the problem, rather than the policy choices
of Kerry versus those of Kerry-lite -- which are
indistinguishable in any important way, anyway -- what can be
done? There's nothing that can be done now, but much that can be
done on an ongoing basis, most particularly political
organization under the direction of a party that has the energy,
pluck and resolve to replace the existing system with one that
doesn't depend on foreign expansion to resolve its dilemmas and
sets the fulfilment of human requirements, not capital
accumulation, as the primary purpose of economic activity

In the meantime, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to back a
candidate who must, and will, carry on in the tradition of the
monopoly (to use Parenti's words), with policies as grim,
reactionary and aggressive, or more so, than those of the
current occupant of the White House. At best, voting for Kerry
is a pointless act, and at worst, a backward act, to the extent
it fosters the illusion that change can be achieved by changing
the name plate on the Oval Office desk. Contrary to the reigning
mythology, doing something pointless is not better than doing
nothing, where nothing means refusing to cast a ballot for
either Thing One or Thing Two. And calling Emperor Moore's,
Parenti's and Chomsky's strutting about without their clothes
on, what it is, can't hurt either.

1. "Chomsky backs 'Bush-lite' Kerry," The Guardian, March 20,
2004. 2. Ibid. 3. Center for Responsive Politics, cited in "The
fallacy of the 'anybody but Bush' movement," Workers World,
March 25, 2004. 4. Mark Hand, "It's Time to Get Over It: Kerry
Tells Anti-War Movement to Move On,"
<http://www.counterpunch.com/>www.counterpunch.com, February 18,
2004. 5. "Bush can be stopped: A letter to the Left,"
<http://www.petitiononline.com/LttrLeft/petition.html>http://www.petitionon
line.com/LttrLeft/petition.html 6. John Pilger, "Bush Or Kerry?
Look Closely And The Danger Is The Same," New Statesman, March
04, 2004; "The fallacy of the 'anybody but Bush' movement,"
Workers World, March 25, 2004. 7. From Kerry's Web site, as
cited in "The fallacy of the 'anybody but Bush' movement,"
Workers World, March 25, 2004. 8. "On foreign policy, Kerry is
not far from Bush," The Globe and Mail, March 3, 2004. 9. "Kerry
Condemns Bush for Failing to Back Aristide," The New York Times,
March 7, 2004. 10. Willian Blum, "If Kerry's the answer, what's
the question?"
<http://www.counterpunch.com/>www.counterpunch.com, March 2,
2004. 11. Ibid. 12. "The fallacy of the 'anybody but Bush'
movement," Workers World, March 25, 2004. 13. Gabriel Kolko,
"The US must be isolated and constrained,"
<http://www.counterpunch.org/>www.counterpunch.org, March 12-14,
2004. 14. Mark Hand, "It's Time to Get Over It: Kerry Tells
Anti-War Movement to Move On,"
<http://www.counterpunch.com/>www.counterpunch.com, February 18,
2004. 15. "Bush can be stopped: A letter to the Left,"
<http://www.petitiononline.com/LttrLeft/petition.html>http://www.petitionon
line.com/LttrLeft/petition.html 16. Michael Parenti, interviewed
by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, February 23, 2004,
<<http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/23/1528222>Http://www.dem
ocracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/23/1528222> 17. Ibid. 18. The
analogy was originally used by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy in
"Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social
Order," Monthly Review Press, 1966, p. 41. 19. This is
paraphrasing Paul Sweezy in The Theory of Capitalist
Development. Monthly Review Press, 1970, p. 352. 20.
"Jubilation, Rage in S. Korea Impeachment of President Exposes
Deep Ideological Rift," The Washington Post, March 13, 2004. 21.
Ibid. 22. "Senator John Kerry's Statement on Venezuela," The
Miami Herald, March 23, 2004.
<http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/8255944.htm>http://www.mia
mi.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/8255944.htm ... You may
re-post this article, providing the text remains unchanged.
E-mail list. Send an e-mail to sr.gowans@s... and write
"subscribe" in the subject line. To unsubscribe. Send an e-mail
to sr.gowans@s... and write "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
Stephen Gowans

--

[GW Chimpzilla]

Steve Krulick wrote:

Yah. About 1.5% of the electorate. Just might be enough to ensure a Bush
victory. Assholes.

[Steve Krulick]

So you blatantly opine, based on erroneous or fallacious
assumptions. Snipping away the material I posted is not
refutation.

Nader is now running between 6 and 13% nationwide, highest among
youth, and even higher (20%) among Arab-Americans.

Try this on for size, whiner; here's my standard response to
Gorebots like you since 2000, and I'll let you apply it to the
Kerry/Bush race this year:

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2001/2001L-01-24-15.html

Speaking for ME, I have NO regrets about voting for Nader in NY
(in 1996 and 2000), as HE was the best candidate running, and
the one closest to MY views. Gore should apologize to those who
WASTED a vote on HIM, as HE didn't even fight to keep the win he
got!

The Greens have been shouting to the Dems NOT to roll over and
cave in to the Repubs on everything, but the Dems refused to
listen, over and over.

THEY, the Dems, are the guilty ones, NOT the messengers who were
ignored.

But you go on blaming the victim who fights for the good, and
ignore the co-dependent "lesser" evil ones who "enable" the
greater evil to have its way. I don't hear you
chastising Lieberman or the dozens of other gung-ho Dems on this
one, or who OK'd Ashcroft and the gang.

--

[GW Chimpzilla]

Steve Krulick wrote:

I can play the cut-and-paste game, too!

Nader Set To Halp Bush Get Elected In 2004

"Ralph Nader, who in 2000 was the worst thing to happen to civil liberties and
poor people in quite a while, is winding up to do them another favor. The
former Green candidate for president is traveling the college circuit, coyly
hinting that he'll decide about his political plans later, but few people think
he'll sit it out.... Nader not only elects Republicans, he's starting to sound
like them." --David Sarasohn, The Oregonian, 11/12/03
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf?/base
editorial/106864182076490.xml

I watched Michael Moore frightening away all Republicans and most of those who
consider themselves to be moderates in his smug, self-satisfied effusion at the
Oscar ceremonies. Speaking as one who voted for Roosevelt in 1944 and who has
never voted for a Republican candidate for President, I despise spoilers along
with those who, like Moore, are certain that they have the revealed truth and
that they must blurt it out on all occasions. If I were a Republican moderate
or a Democratic conservative the Moores of this world might well push me into
the embrace of George Bush and his crew of immoderate reactionaries. I grow
ever more tired of the Green Party, Ralph Nader and all the rest of the
left-wing nuts. I call them nuts, because although agreeing with much of what
they say, it is much more important to throw George W. Bush out of office than
it is to base a campaign on what to the average voter seems to be just another
bad-tempered rant. --Richard G. Elliott, 06.24.03

Michael Moore, Nader, And the Green Machine

Michael Moore has decided to leave Ralph Nader and the Green Party behind,
promising to actively work for the DEM nominee from now to the end of the 2004
presidential election. Right now, he's backing Clark, and he's already adding
some zest to the campaign, introducing Clark to an overflow crowd in New
Hampshire, saying he's looking forward to a presidential debate between the
General and "The Deserter." (wp, 01.18.04)

Moore wrote on his web site that the reason he flipped from a third party
position to the DEMs is to help "save the country from catastrophe." The
catastrophe is, of course, Bush, which is what we've been saying since we
started Bush Watch in February, 1998. As we saw it then and as we see it now,
the only party capable of beating Bush is the Democratic Party, and voting for
any other candidate is, in effect, voting for Bush. So, when will Nader and the
Greens get the message?

Ralph Nader, unfortunately, is turning himself into a joke. Unwilling to leave
the national political stage for the greater good, Nader argues that many on
the Far Right would vote for him if he were to run in 2004, thereby helping the
Democrats. What nonsense. He's been carrying that message to fringe groups of
dissatisfied, third party voters on the left, looking for a third party other
than the Greens to do the organizational busy work for another presidential
campaign.

As for the Greens, they still plan to field a presidential candidate at their
upcoming convention, using the party's campaign apparatus, considerable in some
states, to siphon votes from the DEM presidential candidate. This is folly,
particularly given what the Green Party was supposedly formed for: to protect
the environment. Isn't that why they called themselves the "Green" Party? Here
we have the most anti-environmetal President in modern times, and the party
built to defend the environment plans to help him win by not supporting the
only candidate capable of beating him.

Some Bush Watch readers have suggested that we ignore Moore, Nader, and the
Greens. After all, they only represent, say 1% of the vote. That may be so, but
it's an important 1%. First, these folks are on the same side of the political
spectrum as the Dems; secondly, a higher percentage than in most parties are
activists. As the days go on, with Bush in control of the money, the government
megaphone, and the press, the one thing the DEMs must count on to win is
grassroots support, a point most recently made by Paul Krugman in the NYT.

Right now, then, we're waiting for all those letters supporting the DEM
presidential candidate from Nader and Green followers that, in the past, have
arrived like clockwork any time we wrote anything negative about Michael
Moore's politics. --Jerry Politex, 01.18.04

Ralph Nader's Skeleton Closet
Ralph Nader has done a lot of good for consumers. He has also led attacks on
such evils as Volkswagen cars, the American Automobile Association, whole milk,
colored toilet paper, fluoridated water, and the Elvis stamp. Through it all he
has manipulated the press brilliantly and built himself a comfortable and
powerful niche without need for election, even within his own consumer groups.

4 years after he unquestionably tipped the 2000 Presidential election to George
W. Bush, Nader refuses to admit that or take any kind of responsibility, and
he's planning to run again. This time though even the Green party is getting
sick of him.

For 30 years, Ralph Nader has proclaimed himself to be "Saint Ralph", the only
honest man in Washington, and the only friend of the average citizen. If that
doesn't make you puke already, then click on the allegation of your choice:

a HUGE hypocrite -- just another politician -- Anti-democratic authoritarian --
secret luxury house -- owned by the trial lawyers' lobby -- busted a union
among his workers -- abuses workers -- amassing millions of dollars and playing
the stock market with it -- secrecy and stonewalling -- vindictive toward
critics -- forced "contributions" to his college PIRG groups -- hypochondriac
-- Quotes -- Sources.

Quotes:

"[Nader] doesn't want to be a Green, he runs with his coterie rather than party
organizers, he doesn't involve local Green leaders and he doesn't get the
racial issue. I fear if Nader runs, he'll drag down every other Green in this
country." -- John Rensenbrink, editor of "Green Horizon Quarterly"

"Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who
represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in taxes." --
Dave Barry

"If they don't close these [nuclear] reactors down, we'll have civil war in five
years." -- Ralph Nader in 1977

"[Nader running for president again is] an ego-centered exercise in futility.
[Until the Green Party wins more local elections], wasting its time in races
that are unwinnable only detracts from its message, its long-term goals and
current accomplishments." --Larry Barnett, Green Party member and former mayor
of Sonoma, California

"We spent a hundred years trying to clean sweatshops out of our system and what
happens? Along comes the first major reformer of any impact, and he starts
doing the same goddamned thing. ... My wife had to tell Ralph once to stop
phoning after midnight." -- Jim Turner, former Nader lieutenant

"He [Nader] is, I believe, an authoritarian, a man on a white horse, and I for
one, hope that he will never ride into the White House." -- David Sanford,
Nader's former editor, 1976

Jay Leno: "What do you do for fun?" Nader: "Strawberries" -- The Tonight Show

"Information is the currency of democracy. It's denial must always be suspect."
-- Ralph Nader

A HUGE hypocrite:

Nader wraps himself in the mantle of "public interest" with a personally
ascetic style and a focus on structural or "apple pie" issues -- consumer
safety, corporate accountability, "citizen power" -- rather than traditional
partisan issues. He opposes not conservatives, but arrogant corporate leaders
who amass money through public tax breaks, deny any democratic input or
inquiry, and viciously attack anyone who challenges them. It's a brilliant
strategy.

Unfortunately, Nader has become exactly what he attacks. His organizations allow
no public input, intimidate foes and journalists, bust unions, hide almost all
details of their finances (to the point of breaking laws), and have amassed
millions of dollars - all under Nader's direct and autocratic control.
Meanwhile, Ralph has gotten rich off of investments in stock; in other words,
by owning and profiting off the very corporations he is attacking. -- Sources
-- Back to the top

Just another politician:

"Nader is as ravenous as a Nixon or a Kennedy, and the abstract principles he
espouses he does not live by." -- Charles McCarry, "Citizen Nader"

Ralph's image is built on the idea that he is somehow pure, not motivated by
power, fame or money like those nasty politicians. But he is in fact just
another Washington lawyer and lifelong Beltway pol who has built a powerful
organization, lobbies Congress, raises millions through direct mail and $1,000
a plate dinners, gets paid tens of thousands by interest groups for his
speeches, manipulates the press and overworks a lot of earnest young staffers.

Even his presidential ambitions are old news. He claims to be running just to
send a message, but Nader also ran for president in 1992 (running a write-in
campaign in the New Hampshire primary, with little success). As far back as
1976, his media supporters (including Nicholas Van Hoffman and Mary McGrory)
were plugging a draft Nader movement in their columns.

It's fine for him to want power, fame and even money -- everyone else in
Washington does -- but he ought to cut the holier-than-thou crap and take
responsibility for his ambitions.

No one doubts that Ross Perot -- who spent $60 million out of pocket on his last
campaign -- has huge personal ambitions, whatever good he may accomplish as a
candidate. Why should we think more of Ralph Nader, who has built a career
flush with power, fame and money out of nothing else but his political actions
in Washington?

Nader is no better and no different than Jerry Falwell or Ralph Reed -- nimble
but unelected politicians who've made successful careers as self-appointed
moralists.

Sources -- Back to the top

Anti-Democratic Authoritarian:

Saint Ralph loves to preach about democracy and "citizen power", but he runs
his carefully concealed empire with an iron grip. Of 19 groups associated with
Nader, the most powerful and important groups are all directly controlled by
Nader or completely under his influence and no one else's. With some groups,
Nader is the only contributor; others are controlled by his sister, Laura Nader
Milleron, or his cousin.

And there is nothing democratic about Nader's groups -- citizens have no power
at all. Of 19 groups in Nader's network, only one relatively minor one is a
membership organization, which would allow individuals to vote and challenge
the decisions of the small elite running them. The groups' managers operate in
strict secrecy, releasing the absolute legal minimum of information, and
sometimes not even that. And when Nader IS challenged, he gets vindictive and
often attacks his questioner.

Nader and his PIRG groups also fought for (and got) a very coercive funding
mechanism -- dues charged automatically to all college students, whether they
support Nader or not.

Beyond the hypocrisy, this authoritarian streak is very dangerous in a potential
president -- presidents have tremendous power, and the most important check on
it is simply their personal honor and unwillingness to abuse power. Nader has
never shown these traits, much less an ability to make tough decisions that are
fair to his enemies. Of course, he hasn't had much power to abuse -- yet.
Anyone considering voting for him should think twice -- or three times -- about
that.

Sources -- Back to the top

Secret luxury house:

The Nader myth is built in large part of stories of his personal asceticism --
such as taking a minuscule salary, not owning a car (he bums lots of rides),
and living (through the 1970s at least) in a boarding house with a bathroom
down the hall. He claims to live on $5,000 a year and give nearly all the rest
to his organizations.

Back in 1996, we noted that Nader had long earned hundreds of thousands of
dollars per year in speaking fees -- over $250,000 annually even in the
mid-1970s -- played the stock market and carefully avoided making details of
his finances public, even as he demanded that various corporations and other
politicans reveal their money dealings.

He has steadfastly refused to make his tax returns public (as Dole and Clinton
have done). In 1996 he even says he spent less than $5,000 on his campaign so
that he wasn't required to file even the minimal financial disclosure forms
every other candidate is filing.

This time he had to admit spend more than $5,000, and his financial disclosure
-- while sketchy -- revealed that he is a multimillionaire who makes hundreds
of thousands on speeches each year and owns over $1 million in Cisco stock
alone. (Nader still refused to release his tax returns, though all other major
candidates have done so for the last many years.)

His lifestyle claims are bullpucky in other ways, too. His speaking gigs often
include first class hotels and and meals, even limousines, and the many
organizations he controls -- that's where his tax-deductible contributions go
-- have many ways to cover his expenses as well. Plus, there is considerable
evidence that he does own and stay in one or more houses. He acknowledges
spending considerable time at a "family house" in Connecticut, and he appears
to own a townhouse in Washington.

David Sanford of the New Republic documented that residents of a posh
neighborhood in Washington -- on Bancroft Place NW -- often spotted him
sneaking into an expensive house there. Some investigation showed that Nader's
brother purchased the house -- worth $100,000 even back in 1972 -- though he
was an underemployed educational "consultant" and had no education beyond high
school. Nader issued a statement "that he does not live in his brother's
Bancroft Place house", but when a now-former worker (Lowell Dodge) asked him
privately, he wouldn't deny it.

When the Washington Post's then-society columnist Maxine Cheshire asked Nader
about the reports, he knew every detail of the house's financing and couldn't
resist rhapsodizing about what a great tax break buying a house was. "He talks
about that real estate investment the way some men talk about sex. He's so
excited about the whole idea of tax write-offs and all that. I mean, did I
realize that that's the greatest investment you can make, the biggest tax
advantage, bla bla bla bla bla bla."

Sources -- Back to the top

Owned by the trial lawyers' lobby:

Nader always received lots of funding from trials lawyers, and in return has
supported their interests throughout his career. For all his talk of democracy,
Nader's vision is of an elite of lawyers -- led of course by himself --
defending the little guy, much more than true "citizen power". He confided to
Charles McCarry his dream of having 4,000 to 5,000 "professionals" around the
country to battle business nationwide.

Sources -- Back to the top

Busted a union among his workers:

Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at
one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working
conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the
union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across
America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a
union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000
down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who
remains unapologetic to this day.

Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause'
organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."

When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader
immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends
who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When
Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were
changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own
work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two
supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to
drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of
these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader
makes no apology.

According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades…you can't have
work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary"
according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small
public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they
paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard
work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded
organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the
stock market with during all these events.

Sources -- Back to the top

Abuses workers --

"How can we go out and try to save the world from people when we're grinding
people to death all the time?"-- John Esposito, original staffer at Nader's
Center for the Study of Responsive Law

"Nader strikes me as conforming to the stereotype people have of sociologists
and politicians: they bleed for the poor and downtrodden but mistreat their
maids." -- David Sanford

Like many Washington politicians, Ralph Nader's groups have long taken
advantage of earnest young ambitious workers, with two differences; Nader was
more controlling and paid far less. In 1976, many were paid $5,000 per year and
only a few at the top made as much as $20,000. (Nader's organizations refuse to
release information on what they pay workers.) Meanwhile, Nader required daily
logs of everything the workers did from 7am to 9pm, plus monthly summaries of
these logs. If you didn't turn in your logs, you didn't get paid.

Nader often called workers after midnight or on sunny weekend days, with
instructions, or just to test their willingness to work hard. When a revolt
over working conditions broke out in the Congress Project and students demanded
a group session with Nader, he contemptuously scheduled a meeting at 7:00 am,
believing that few would show up.

9 marriages of staffers broke up under the pressure, including John and Nancy
Esposito's, Mark Green's, Sid Wolfe's, and Davitt McAteer's.

What makes this meanness worse is that Nader claims to be defending workers --
for example in opposing the GATT treaty -- and that his organizations have a
huge surplus of money, accumulating millions of dollar with which Ralph has
played the stock market.

Sources -- Back to the top

Amassing millions of dollars and playing the stock market with it:

Unlike almost every other nonprofit organization, Nader's various groups often
amass a nontaxable profit of several hundred thousand dollars per year, and
have rapidly build up impressive net worth's -- which Ralph refuses to reveal
in his annual reports. (His lame reply is that people who are interested can
get the information by getting every year's annual report and doing the math.
So much for openness.)

The book "Abuse of Trust" carefully documents the money amassed and stocks
played for 6 major groups, including Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for
the Study of Responsive Law, his two largest groups. Public Citizen, Inc., in
particular, amassed money so quickly that it bought an old FBI building for
$1.25 million IN CASH in 1980, only its eighth year of existence.

One reason he may hide his ample cash reserves -- besides the fact that people
may not want to give him more money -- is that he is fond of playing the stock
market with that green. (He also uses surpluses from his most flush
organizations, usually the tax deductible ones, to give grants to his other
groups.) Some of these transactions appear reckless for a nonprofit, "public
interest" group; others skirt the edges of insider trading and conflict of
interest. Mostly, it seems that all this money was a toy that Nader enjoyed
playing with, especially as his winnings increased his power, fame and
influence.

For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety
Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times,
buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had
$150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high
risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years,
PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and
charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk
threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did
not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with
fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF)
-- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a
number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was
also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.

Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by
selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock
of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the
primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would
offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half
months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan
Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of
steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until
there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered.

In 1970, IT&T attempted to merge with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Nader
filed a 50 page brief attacking the merger, then SSF sold IT&T stock short. It
made almost 10% on its money in 6 DAYS, then closed its position two days
before the merger was approved. When pressed by a reporter, Nader said the
timing was "mere coincidence" and said he had no control over the investment.
However, his sister Laura Nader Millerson was the sole trustee of SSF
throughout its existence, and Nader was the sole contributor.

Sources -- Back to the top

Secrecy and stonewalling:

Ralph exhibits a driven secrecy and paranoia reminiscent of no one so much as
Richard Nixon, his old enemy. The man who said "information is the currency of
democracy; its denial must always be suspect" routinely refuses to release even
basic information about himself or his organizations. Granted, he has enemies,
but this trait goes back to when no one knew of him. In the mid-1960s, before
"Unsafe At Any Speed" made him famous, Nader wrote for the New Republic
Magazine and often gave the secretary there a false name (Mr. Wilson) when he
called or visited. Even then, he made some of his phone calls in whispers or in
code to thwart possible wiretappers.

Another Nixonian trait of Nader's is a tendency to cover-up. When pressed or
challenged, he has lied, shunted responsibility onto his staff members, made
them reconstruct documents, hidden his control over his own organizations,
attacked the press or critics involved, or simply refused to release
information with lame excuses.

There are many examples:
-- Ralph refuses to release his tax returns (as Clinton and Dole have)
-- He even says he will spend less than $5,000 in this presidential campaign so
he won't have to file the minimal financial disclosure all other candidates
have filed.
-- Two of his top aides even refused to give the address of Nader's office to
two Congressman who requested it at a Congressional Hearing.
-- His main group, Public Citizen, has actively fought disclosure laws that
would inform the public of the role that special interest groups -- such as his
-- play in lobbying on legislation. (e.g. H.R. 81 in the 96th Congress)
-- Public Citizen refused to give information to the Better Business Bureau or
the similar NIB when requested.
-- He runs a network of organizations, which he claims are independent -- but
his brother, sister and cousins hold major leadership positions with several,
Nader heads advisory boards for others, and he is the only or major financial
donor to 3 groups. Many other groups are funded in whole or in part by other
groups in the network that Ralph does directly control.
-- Ralph even incorporated one of his groups -- the Public Safety Research
Institute -- in Delaware, because of its notoriously lax corporate laws,
-- As of 1982, his groups disregarded the charitable solicitation laws of 25 by
not filing legally required registrations. At least 1 state (New York) had to
pursue Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Responsive Law
(Nader's 2 biggest groups) legally to try and force them to obey the law.
-- After the first attacks on him for being owned by trial lawyers, he
distorted facts, attacked the press and forced am employee to create a false
history to cover up the scandal. The employee, Lowell Dodge, later fell out
with Nader and revealed this cover-up.

Sources -- Back to the top

Vindictive toward critics:

Another authoritarian trait of Nader's is his inability to tolerate any
criticism. Journalists who question his excesses are inevitably accused of
personal vendettas, or being tools of industry.

Politicians get worse: Nader called one Congressman who opposed the Consumer
Protection Act "a disgustingly repulsive, slimy double-crosser." He called
another a "pathological liar" and a "corrupt, lying anti-people crook." His
crime? Opposing a bill to mandate air bags. Nader went on to say that people
who opposed mandatory airbags were the kind that would "sell thalidomide to
pregnant women."

Even his own workers face Ralph's wrath for leaving after years of grueling,
underpaid and loyal work. James Fallows, author of a recent book critiquing the
media, worked for Nader at the start of his career. He wrote: "I think you
won't find many people who have had a pleasant parting with Ralph. It's usually
pretty ugly when the separation comes, and I think it's largely that by leaving
you seem to make a choice... a 'if you're not with us you're against us' sort
of thing."

Penn State's Board of Overseers declined Nader's PIRG group's coercive funding
and voted instead to let students check a box to make a donation (like
presidential campaign funding on 1040 tax forms) -- a perfectly reasonable
compromise. Nader blasted this plan as a "sabotage technique" and "tyranny 1776
style," and then announced an investigation of the school's trustees for
"conflicts of interest."

Sources -- Back to the top

Forced contributions to his college PIRG groups:

College PIRG groups, which Nader founded and leads despite his denials of
control, use an astonishingly undemocratic, even coercive funding mechanism
that Ralph designed. Once a college approves, all students are automatically
billed a few dollars out of their student fees to support the local PIRG. To
avoid paying, students must make a special trip to the Registrar and fill out a
form so they can get their $2-6 back.

Most don't of course, out of inertia or because they aren't even aware they're
funding Ralph. That's why record and book clubs use the same mechanism. Nader,
like most consumer advocates, opposes these billing methods as a rip-off -
unless they fund his own groups. One PIRG worker estimated that at Penn State
alone, forced payments would have brought in $270,000 a year, while a voluntary
checkoff would only have raised $30,000

These forced payments brought over a million dollars a year to PIRGs even back
in the mid-1970s. (Nader's PIRG group won't release the total amount.) At least
145 colleges in 20 states were involved.

When Penn State turned down this method in favor of a box students could check
to donate, the PIRG refused it. Nader attacked the school viciously, as
described above.

Sources -- Back to the top

Hypochondriac:

By many accounts, Ralph has a fear of germs that may well be hypochondriacal.
When he was interviewed in July 2000 for CNN, his main concern before the
interview was "Did you wash that [earpiece]?". According to his former editor
David Sanford, Nader refuses dinner invitations from anyone with pets, because
he thinks cats cause leukemia, and simply hates dogs.

Sources -- Back to the top

Sources

<"http://www.earth1.net/~ricjan/yates.html">"Nader is a Pain in the Ass", by
Brock Yates, The Windmill, November 1971

----------Anti-democratic Authoritarian Sources

"Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery
Gateway) 1982 p16-17

--- Back to the top

----------Hypocrite Sources

"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
1976, p19-20

"Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery
Gateway) 1982

--- Back to the top

----------Secret Luxury House sources

"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
1976, p23-26

"Ralph Nader, Inc.", Forbes Magazine, September 17, 1990 p119, 122

--- Back to the top

----------Owned by the Trial Lawyers Sources

"Dems Step Up to Well-Stocked Plaintiff Bar", Wall Street Journal, September 4,
1992 pA6/A8

"Forbes' Raid on Nader", Washington Post, September 10, 1990 pB1, B10

"Public Citizen's Non-Disclosure", Wall Street Journal, March 17, 1992 pA14

"Ralph Nader is a bargain for trial lawyers at $1,000 a table", by L. Gordon
Crovitz, Wall Street Journal, November 14, 1990 pA15

"Naderite Mossbacks Lose Control Over Corporate Law", Wall Street Journal, June
24, 1992

"Tortmeisters In the Sun", Wall Street Journal, October 30,1990 pA18

"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
1976, p33-42

"Ralph Nader, Inc.", Forbes Magazine, September 17, 1990 p119, 122

"L. Ron Nader" (editorial), Wall Street Journal, June 25, 1991

"A Chink In Nader's Armor?", Leah Young, The New Republic, September 2, 1972

--- Back to the top

----------Just a Politician Sources

Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1996

$1000/plate: "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt,
(Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p14-15

1976 run - "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New
Republic Books) 1976, p1-5 --- Back to the top

----------Union Busting Sources

"Anti Labor Chapter Surfaces in Nader's Past ", by Heather Szerlag, Pacifica
Radio News, October 31, 2000 (starting at 10:45 into the half hour broadcast -
slide your RealAudio player forward to that point.)

"Union Buster? The NADER?", by Nick Mamatas, Greenwich Village Gazette, Vol. 5,
#44, September 15, 2000

"1.75 Cheers For Ralph", Left Business Observer, October, 1996 (see the section
"Ralph As Boss")

"Nader Is A Union Buster" (email), by Tim Shorrock (one of the fired workers),
The Sixties-L Listserv, June 27, 2000

"Editors Claim Firing By Nader Based on Unionization Attempt," by Peter Perl,
Washington Post, June 28, 1984 pB3

--- Back to the top

----------Abusing Workers Sources

"The Low-Paid Affluent in Public-Interest Work", by S. Robert Lichter and
Stanley Rothman, New York Times, July 18, 1983 (letter to the editor responding
to Nader's charges in the next article)

"Washington Talk Briefing: One Survey, Two Views", by James Clarity and Phil
Gailey, New York Times, June 29, 1983, pA14

"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
1976, p60-65

--- Back to the top

----------Amassing Money Sources

Ralph Nader's official financial disclosure form for year 2000, Open Secrets web
site

"Inside Nader's stock portfolio", by Jake Tapper, Salon Magazine, October 28,
2000

"Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery
Gateway) 1982 p81-95

"Nader Pays $1,250,000 Cash for Old Office Building", Ann Zimmerman,
Washingtonian, June 1980, p11 (cited in Abuse of Trust)

"Nader Undaunted by Setbacks to Consumer Drive", Joseph Lleyveld, New York
Times, November 24, 1975 p1

"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
1976, p28-31

--- Back to the top

----------Secrecy and Paranoia Sources

Tax returns and campaign reports: Newsweek, "How Much Is He Worth?", April 8,
1996 p6

Bernard Shaw interview with Nader, CNN Inside Politics, April 9, 1996

"Public Citizen's Non-Disclosure", Wall Street Journal, March 17, 1992 pA14

"Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery
Gateway) 1982 p 31, 16-17, 80-95

Generally, and New Republic false name: "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for
America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books) 1976, p18-22, introduction
p.xi-xii, p11, p19-23

Information denial must always be suspect quote: "Abuse of Trust", p139, citing
Good Housekeeping

Wouldn't give Nader's office address out: "Abuse of Trust", p119-120, 124

Refused info to BBB & NIB: "Abuse of Trust", p118-119

Opposed HR 81: "Abuse of Trust", p119, 124, 139

Failure to register: "Abuse of Trust", p104-110

Lowell Dodge cover-up: "Me & Ralph", chapter 3

--- Back to the top

----------Vindictiveness Sources

Generally -- "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New
Republic Books) 1976, p56-57

Penn State-- "Me & Ralph", p52-55

Fallows & leaving Nader- "Me & Ralph", p69-73

Congress-- "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt,
(Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p146-7

"The Biter Bit," National Review, November 19, 1990 p18

"Nader Says No", by Peter Brimelow, Forbes, April 25, 1994 p18

--- Back to the top

----------Forced PIRG Contribution

Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1983 p1

"Campus Contest -- Conservatives vs. Nader Group", by Gregory Lamb, Christian
Science Monitor, March 24, 1983 p2

New York Times, March 13, 1983 p20

"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
1976, p8, 52-58

"Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery
Gateway) 1982 p147- 149

"Mr. Nader's Conglomerate" (editorial), Wall Street Journal, April 17, 1980 p26

--- Back to the top

----------Hypochondriac Sources

"Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
1976,p18

"Do You Want to Ralph?", Village Voice, July 26, 2000

--- Back to the top

----------Quote Sources

Civil war quote - "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt,
(Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p146, citing "'Geiger Counter', Voice, April 4,
1977". Is that the Village Voice? Not clear.

Dave Barry quote -- from his book "Sweating Out Taxes", quoted on Susan
Brumbaugh's Internet Quotes page.

Denial of information is suspect quote -- "Abuse of Trust" 1982 citing "Ralph
Nader Reports", Ladies Home Journal, September 1973,

Sanford quote -- "Me and Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford
(New Republic Book Company) 1976 Introduction (pX)

sweatshops quote -- "Me and Ralph", p62

Ralph Redux? by Micah L. Sifry, The Nation, November 6, 2003

--- Back to the top

[Cameron L. Spitzer]

In article <MPG.1ac8992a5...@netnews.comcast.net>,

Prove it. Your bluff is called.

Cameron

[Cameron L. Spitzer]

In article <405EE8E3...@thank-you.com>, Richard Schumacher wrote:
> Only if you want to help re-elect Bush

Everybody keeps repeating that as if it's some kind of
self-evident truth. It's not.
Try to prove Nader's run in 2000 didn't *INCREASE* Gore's tally
in that election.
You can't.

It's just as "likely" Nader brought millions of Dems out
to vote for Gore because they were scared of the
"spoiler effect." Without Nader, they would have stayed
home and let Bush win by a landslide.

The Dems are going to keep losing as long as they stick
to their foolish and misguided "run to the center" strategy.
Nader and the Greens can help them some, but not enough
to overcome the poor Dem candidates.
Blaming Nader and the Greens isn't going to change that.

Cameron

[Steve Krulick]

Again, you don't address any of my SUBSTANTIVE material! You
just snip IT away! THAT is not refutation. You have simply
defaulted the arguments! No debate points for YOU, Sparky

As for YOUR material, it's just some OTHER persons' fallacious
blatant assertions of THEIR unsubstantiated opinions!

>
> Nader Set To Halp Bush Get Elected In 2004

No, that's just fallacious illogic based on the myth of an
unprovable "spoiler" fantasy.

> "Ralph Nader, who in 2000 was the worst thing to happen to civil liberties and
> poor people in quite a while,

Why? Al Gore WON the election! So why blame Ralph for helping
GORE WIN, just as I demonstrated, but YOU snipped away?!! This
too, as you have, is based on fallacious reasoning without any
support logic or evidence.

> is winding up to do them another favor. The
> former Green candidate for president is traveling the college circuit, coyly
> hinting that he'll decide about his political plans later, but few people think
> he'll sit it out.... Nader not only elects Republicans, he's starting to sound
> like them." --David Sarasohn, The Oregonian, 11/12/03
> http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf?/base
> editorial/106864182076490.xml

Elects REPUBLICANS? Plural?!! Nader offers convincing evidence
that the voters he helped bring to the polls contributed to
Cantwell's senate win and led to the Dems getting the Senate
when Jeffords switched! But show ANY Republicans Nader
"elected"!!! This is more of the same lie! Oh, and just HOW is
he starting to SOUND like a Republican? Give ANY examples!

> I watched Michael Moore frightening away all Republicans and most of those who
> consider themselves to be moderates in his smug, self-satisfied effusion at the
> Oscar ceremonies. Speaking as one who voted for Roosevelt in 1944 and who has
> never voted for a Republican candidate for President, I despise spoilers along
> with those who, like Moore, are certain that they have the revealed truth and
> that they must blurt it out on all occasions. If I were a Republican moderate
> or a Democratic conservative the Moores of this world might well push me into
> the embrace of George Bush and his crew of immoderate reactionaries. I grow
> ever more tired of the Green Party, Ralph Nader and all the rest of the
> left-wing nuts.

So this is just another ad hominem whine. NO specifics, just a
broad sweeping brush of name calling. Maybe you can show some
examples of Nader's "left wing" positions.

> I call them nuts, because although agreeing with much of what
> they say, it is much more important to throw George W. Bush out of office than
> it is to base a campaign on what to the average voter seems to be just another
> bad-tempered rant. --Richard G. Elliott, 06.24.03

So he merely opines. But if you'd read the Josh Frank and
Stephen Gowans pieces and actually tried to address them, you'd
see that merely ejecting Bush doesn't get rid of Bushism.

> Michael Moore, Nader, And the Green Machine
>
> Michael Moore has decided to leave Ralph Nader and the Green Party behind,
> promising to actively work for the DEM nominee from now to the end of the 2004
> presidential election. Right now, he's backing Clark,

Well, so much for THAT waste of time!

> and he's already adding
> some zest to the campaign, introducing Clark to an overflow crowd in New
> Hampshire, saying he's looking forward to a presidential debate between the
> General and "The Deserter." (wp, 01.18.04)
>
> Moore wrote on his web site that the reason he flipped from a third party
> position to the DEMs is to help "save the country from catastrophe."

We'll all be so pleased when President CLARK takes office!

> The
> catastrophe is, of course, Bush, which is what we've been saying since we
> started Bush Watch in February, 1998. As we saw it then and as we see it now,
> the only party capable of beating Bush is the Democratic Party, and voting for
> any other candidate is, in effect, voting for Bush.

So the lie continues! I addressed that in great detail, but YOU
just snipped it away and defaulted on that argument.

No, being a DEMOCRAT who VOTED for Bush, like 13% of the DEMS IN
FLORIDA is where your anger SHOULD be directed! THOSE votes
actually WERE added into Bush's column, whereas the Nader votes
were NOT! Was voting for Buchanan voting for Bush? Was voting
for Harry Browne? These guys are so rabid that they can't even
make logical sense! What about the 100 million NON-voters?!!!
Was NON-voting a vote for Bush? As Letterman said, "If a vote
for Nader is a vote for Bush, who do I vote for if I WANT to
vote for Nader?"

There is no logic to support this myth of AVFNIAVFB but the lie
continues! SHOW me how MY vote for Nader in NY was a vote for
Bush!

> So, when will Nader and the
> Greens get the message?

When the GoreWhores start telling the truth and making logical
sense!

> Ralph Nader, unfortunately, is turning himself into a joke.

More blatant assertions by those who are too blind to see. Why
don't you rail at the Dems who voted for Bush?

> Unwilling to leave
> the national political stage for the greater good, Nader argues that many on
> the Far Right would vote for him if he were to run in 2004, thereby helping the
> Democrats.

Maybe you can show where Nader used the term "Far Right" to
describe where his votes would come from!

> What nonsense.

What a strawman!

> He's been carrying that message to fringe groups of
> dissatisfied, third party voters on the left, looking for a third party other
> than the Greens to do the organizational busy work for another presidential
> campaign.

Oh? Which third party? Care to cite an example and prove it?

> As for the Greens, they still plan to field a presidential candidate at their
> upcoming convention,

Which may be Nader! We still don't know!

> using the party's campaign apparatus, considerable in some
> states, to siphon votes from the DEM presidential candidate.

There's that "siphon" canard again! As if the Dem candidate
ALREADY owned and had all rights to those votes, but they are
somehow unrightfully STOLEN by some sneak thief! I addressed
this, but YOU snipped it away!

Ah, the magic word "siphon"! If I had a dime for EVERY time that
buzz word were used since 2000, I'd have my second million! As
if elections were like gasoline thieves during the days of lines
at fuel pumps! As if Gore, or ANYONE, OWNED someone's vote and
that Nader was no better than a common crook who STOLE what was
RIGHTFULLY Al Gore's! Hey, why did they allow BUSH in the
election, as he "siphoned" far more votes away from Gore, which
votes would have let Gore win handily in 2000 if only he didn't
actually have to have ANY of his votes "siphoned" away by all
those other candidates who had no RIGHT to run and keep poor Al
from his rightful anointing! Gore "siphoned" votes from Nader,
Bush "siphoned" votes from Pat Buchanan, and on and on.

Sorry, but there's NO logical support for this "siphoning"
fantasy myth that doesn't begin with a false premise! As Green
webmaster and engineer Cameron Spitzer cites, when you start
with a false premise, you can follow it with any conclusion: "If
pigs could fly, I would be king!" and they'd be equally false.
Like "If Nader hadn't run, Gore would be president today!" Since
we don't live in a universe where Nader didn't run, the premise
is false, and so is the conclusion.

Gore NEVER had my vote in NY! IF Nader hadn't run (there's that
false premise!), I may have voted for McReynolds, or Hagelin, or
some other third party candidate, or most likely, just not
voted. THAT'S what the exit polls suggested, that most Nader
voters simply would have stayed home, or that their vote may
have gone to both Gore and Bush, only slightly more to Gore.
Maybe. In an alternate universe that we don't live in.

> This is folly,
> particularly given what the Green Party was supposedly formed for: to protect
> the environment.

So this person is ignorant too! No, the Green Party was formed
for SEVERAL key reasons: Ecology, Democracy, Justice, Peace.
These Four Pillars are further elaborated into 10 key values;
environment is only ONE of these. And, as shown, there was never
any reason to believe Gore, or now Kerry, has shown any REAL
ACTION that would indicate a better result re the environment.
They barely even TALK the game, but their votes and actions show
how bad they've been in truth.

> Isn't that why they called themselves the "Green" Party?

No, it comes from the German "Der Gruenen"! It means several
things, strawslinger!

> Here
> we have the most anti-environmetal President in modern times, and the party
> built to defend the environment plans to help him win by not supporting the
> only candidate capable of beating him.

So convince the 13% of Dems who voted FOR Bush to change THEIR
votes! Convince the 100 million NON-voters that your candidate
is better! WE are not convinced, and our small numbers can't
explain why Gore lost in Tenn, his home state, or Arkansas,
Clinton's! Or why the Dems lost the Congress and Senate and most
state houses during the 90s! Blame the Greens for THAT too!

The less bad is still bad. I will vote for the person who best
matches MY views, and Nader is it at the moment.

>
> Some Bush Watch readers have suggested that we ignore Moore, Nader, and the
> Greens. After all, they only represent, say 1% of the vote. That may be so, but
> it's an important 1%. First, these folks are on the same side of the political
> spectrum as the Dems;

That's based on ignorance and wishful thinking! Greens are
shaking their heads right now at that stupid remark!

> secondly, a higher percentage than in most parties are
> activists. As the days go on, with Bush in control of the money, the government
> megaphone, and the press, the one thing the DEMs must count on to win is
> grassroots support, a point most recently made by Paul Krugman in the NYT.
>
> Right now, then, we're waiting for all those letters supporting the DEM
> presidential candidate from Nader and Green followers that, in the past, have
> arrived like clockwork any time we wrote anything negative about Michael
> Moore's politics. --Jerry Politex, 01.18.04
>
> Ralph Nader's Skeleton Closet
> Ralph Nader has done a lot of good for consumers. He has also led attacks on
> such evils as Volkswagen cars, the American Automobile Association, whole milk,
> colored toilet paper, fluoridated water, and the Elvis stamp. Through it all he
> has manipulated the press brilliantly and built himself a comfortable and
> powerful niche without need for election, even within his own consumer groups.
>

ALL Nader slams begin with the "I used to think Nader was great"
whines.

> 4 years after he unquestionably tipped the 2000 Presidential election to George
> W. Bush,

*I* question it! So does Al From OF the DLC! I posted that, but
YOU snipped it! Particularly SINCE GORE WON!

How do you explain that? GORE WON so how is Nader to blame for
Bush being in the White House? Just making these blatant
assertions of unsubstantiated opinions about what Nader
"unquestionably" did doesn't prove squat. MY numbers that YOU
snipped show what happened as did the media consortium full
count.

> Nader refuses to admit that or take any kind of responsibility,

Because GORE WON, numbnuts! Why won't YOU blame the 13% of Dems
in Florida who VOTED FOR BUSH?!!! Perhaps half the Nader
supporters switched to Gore at the last minute, GIVING Gore the
WIN! Thanks ingrate!

> and
> he's planning to run again. This time though even the Green party is getting
> sick of him.

False. Obviously this ignorant liar has NO contact with Green
groups or opinion! It's just more made up blatant assertions
with NO evidence!

> For 30 years, Ralph Nader has proclaimed himself to be "Saint Ralph",

False, and YOU can't show any examples of this being done!

> the only
> honest man in Washington, and the only friend of the average citizen. If that
> doesn't make you puke already, then click on the allegation of your choice:

YOU can't even attribute this to it's snarky source! It's old,
and it's lame!

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

I found a more complete reply to this snarky crap, which I
posted in February 2001:

Much of the criticism of Nader was rounded up in a 4-year-old
screed by realchange.org, which did a shellacking on EVERY
candidate. By comparison, Nader's looks like a petulant stamping
of little feet by "reporters" who couldn't find any REAL dirt on
Ralph, so they took unsubstantiated rumors and criticisms from
people who had some grudge against Nader. Nader was never given
a chance to reply. They had to go back YEARS to find anything,
and nothing is supported beyond the innuendo itself.

-----------------------
Back in July 2000 I wrote:

> There's plenty of dirt on Ralph:
> http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

No, merely a bunch of tired, "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no
more," innuendo and whining. One could prepare a similar smear
sheet on Jesus if one wanted to (you know, he drinks and hangs
out with sinners, prostitutes and tax collectors, breaks the
sabbath law, denies Caesar, heals by means of demons, that kind
of stuff) but it wouldn't make it any more accurate an appraisal
than the bilge and hearsay these "journalists" have gathered; I
wonder if they gave Nader or any of his associates the
opportunity to respond to the charges. I doubt it, since Nader
isn't directly quoted once after any of these claims with his
side of the story. What a trial that would make; the prosecution
gets to say everything, the defense is bound and gagged.

Your honor, I rest my case.

-----------------------
In August 2000, I wrote:

I read this piece several months ago, and I must admit it was,
at first glance, disheartening.

But as I looked more closely, I found it rife with logical
fallacies and saw it was mostly hearsay, slanted opinions, and
innuendo from people of questionable objectivity. I was waiting
for someone to ask "Why is He eating and drinking with tax
collectors and sinners?"

Right at the top of this four-year-old screed you get this
straw-man attack:

"For 30 years, Ralph Nader has proclaimed himself to be "Saint
Ralph", the only honest man in Washington, and the only friend
of the average citizen. If that doesn't make you puke already,

then click on the allegation of your choice."

I would like to see a single instance of Nader "proclaiming"
himself "Saint Ralph" other than in a clearly jocular and
self-deprecating way, if at all. If the very stridency of this
sentence doesn't make you puke already, try this
guilt-by-association:

"Ralph exhibits a driven secrecy and paranoia reminiscent of no

one so much as Richard Nixon, his old enemy... Another Nixonian
trait of Nader's is a tendency to cover-up... Nader is no better

and no different than Jerry Falwell or Ralph Reed -- nimble but
unelected politicians who've made successful careers as
self-appointed moralists. "

How about sheer ad hominem hearsay pettiness:

"According to his former editor David Sanford, Nader is a
hypochondriac who refuses dinner invitations from anyone with

pets, because he thinks cats cause leukemia, and simply hates
dogs."

I guess one could write a similarly smarmy portrait of any great
figure from Jesus to St. Francis to Gandhi to ML King, but what
would it prove? That they had some human frailties, as do any of
us? That they had envious, small-minded enemies acting like the
pickpocket who, when he sees a holy man, sees only his pockets?
Even if some of these shortcomings were true, and I have no way
of knowing how accurate they are, they would not weaken the
validity of the message Nader propounds, nor the value of the
work he has done. Compared to the shortcomings of previous
presidents, or those of the other candidates shredded at this
site, Nader comes out quite well by comparison.

The article was useful in one way, however. Recall those movies
about the Roman Empire where the hero is riding his chariot
through the Forum and this wizened guy at his side is holding
the laurel over his head and repeats in his ear (as the crowd
cheers madly) "Remember, you are only a mortal." Whether or not
one phrase of this muck is accurate, and I await some outside
verification from credible journalists before I'll grant any of
it is, it can help from turning, in our minds, a truly great man
into an unrealistic god.

With all that said, I intend to continue to support Nader and
vote for him for President.

-----------------------
The following is from a work in progress by someone answering
realchange's MM charges:

Claim #6: "Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But

when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational
Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started
agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with
all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across

America" The only problem with this claim is that Nader didn't
bust the union and the authors of the website will say so only a
few short lines later. They admit that soon after "ringleader
Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers" Nader handed
the Multinational Monitor over to some "close friends."
Realchange.org suggests that Nader did so to avoid the union
controversy, but they provide no evidence to back that up except
that the two events, the filing of the papers, and the transfer
of ownership, happened around the same time. It is true that a
dispute broke out between the management and the new owners of
the Monitor, but the website is unable to link Nader to the
labor dispute. (It seems to be true that Nader originally fired
Shorrock because he violated editorial policy (and perhaps
Shorrock tried to organize against Ralph in response.) Yet
Shorock has made varying statements about what exactly happened,
and even if his original firing happened as stated above, it had
had nothing to do with union busting) The website also claims

"Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to
form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that
ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions
and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this
day."

None of realchange.org's sources address this claim, and an
extensive search through newspaper databases done by this writer
has turned up absolutely nothing. Where this came from is
undeterminable.

...
Claim #8: Ralph Nader has for many years "taken advantage of"
and "abused" his staff. There is no question that Nader works
his staff (many of whom affectionately take the name "Nader's
Raiders") very very hard. ten hour days. Low wages. Not a fun
work environment. However, there is key difference between Nader
and sweatshop tyrants, that the writers at realchange.org
decline to go into: Nader is running nonprofit organizations.
Most of those who go to work for Nader are college educated and
could earn twice what they make with his groups if they worked
elsewhere. Those who go to work for him do so because they want
to and because they believe in the cause. Further, at this
point, more than thirty years after the founding of his first
nonprofit, nobody who goes to work for Nader should be surprised
by the exertion he expects -- its common knowledge. In other
words, this is not capitalistic wage slavery. Nader's employees
are not members of the working-class desperately tied to Ralph
in order to pay for their next meal -- rather they are mostly
young bourgeoisie knowing full-well what they are getting into.
One last thing -- it is known even by Nader's most fervent
critics that he works just as hard or harder than his staff.

Oh, and Nader is NOT the leader of the Greens; just one more
blatant assertion without any basis in fact.

> a HUGE hypocrite -- just another politician -- Anti-democratic authoritarian --
> secret luxury house -- owned by the trial lawyers' lobby -- busted a union
> among his workers -- abuses workers -- amassing millions of dollars and playing
> the stock market with it -- secrecy and stonewalling -- vindictive toward
> critics -- forced "contributions" to his college PIRG groups -- hypochondriac
> -- Quotes -- Sources.

But YOU couldn't even GIVE the original site! And this is OLD,
ad hominem, blatant assertions from jealous or biased cranky
lesser lights.

>
> Quotes:
>
> "[Nader] doesn't want to be a Green, he runs with his coterie rather than party
> organizers, he doesn't involve local Green leaders and he doesn't get the
> racial issue. I fear if Nader runs, he'll drag down every other Green in this
> country." -- John Rensenbrink, editor of "Green Horizon Quarterly"

Then why has the Green Party GROWN by 27% AFTER Nader ran
through 2002? Why have HUNDREDS of Greens won elective office
since then, including ME?!! The Greens grew 600% in New York!

> "Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who
> represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in taxes." --
> Dave Barry

Barry is a comic; he trades in exaggeration and ironic overkill,
NOT journalism! But where's the PROOF of any of that?

> "If they don't close these [nuclear] reactors down, we'll have civil war in five
> years." -- Ralph Nader in 1977

Context? Source? Proof?

> "[Nader running for president again is] an ego-centered exercise in futility.

Blatant assertion. What were Dean, Clark, Gephardt, et al doing?

Why did Gore run in Texas? ANY chance he could have won there?
Why did he run in Wyoming? Or ANY state where the Republican win
was a foregone conclusion?

One runs because one legally and morally CAN, because one is
offering a CHOICE to the voters.

> [Until the Green Party wins more local elections], wasting its time in races
> that are unwinnable only detracts from its message,

False. Nader running helped GROW the party thusly:

Besides, there are many ways to define a "win"! When one looks
at the gains made by Nader running, only nervous GoreWhores like
Savitt would have wished we hadn't realized them!:

* Green Party and Nader 2000 campaign organizers started more
than 450 new local Green Party groups around the country.
* Over 150,000 people volunteered their time and energy to
supporting the campaign.
* Over 900 Students for Nader and student Green Party
organizations were started and 25,000 student volunteers
registered tens of thousands of new student voters.
* The Green Party ran a record number of 266 candidates this
year (including Ralph Nader). 32 Green candidates won elections
in a dozen states, giving the party a total of 79 elected
officials in 21 states, gains that make the Greens the biggest
political presence of any third party. (More gains after 2000)
* Over 463,000 signatures were collected to put the Green Party
on the ballot in 43 states and in DC.
* The campaign raised 7.7 million dollars.
* The campaign took zero corporate or political action committee
(PAC) money.
* Over 115,000 people signed the on-line petition to protest
Ralph Nader's exclusion from the presidential debates
* Over 8 million pieces of literature and 1 million buttons,
bumper stickers, and lapel stickers were distributed.
* Super Rallies were held of 15,000 people at Madison Square
Garden in New York City, 14,000 at the Target Center in
Minneapolis, 12,000 at the Fleet Center in Boston, 10,000 at the
Pavilion in Chicago, and 10,000 at the Coliseum in Portland, and
10,000 at the MCI Center in Washington, DC.
* The campaign formed a citizens committee of 100 prominent
supporters.
* The campaign had a staff of over 100 people in two offices in
DC and 19 more local offices around the country.
* Ralph Nader campaigned in all 50 states, the only presidential
candidate to do so in the 2000 election.
* Over 600 house parties were held in support of the campaign.
* The campaign sent out over 500 releases and the campaign was
covered in innumerable newspapers, television, and radio stories
around the country.
* The campaign brought two lawsuits against the corporate
funding and anti-democratic processes of the commission on
presidential debates.
* The campaign brought eleven lawsuits to challenge barriers to
ballot access and filing procedures.
* The campaign defended one lawsuit against Mastercard.

> its long-term goals and
> current accomplishments." --Larry Barnett, Green Party member and former mayor
> of Sonoma, California
>
> "We spent a hundred years trying to clean sweatshops out of our system and what
> happens? Along comes the first major reformer of any impact, and he starts
> doing the same goddamned thing. ... My wife had to tell Ralph once to stop
> phoning after midnight." -- Jim Turner, former Nader lieutenant

See answer above. WHEN was this written? Proof? Where is Nader's
response?

> "He [Nader] is, I believe, an authoritarian, a man on a white horse, and I for
> one, hope that he will never ride into the White House." -- David Sanford,
> Nader's former editor, 1976

Sheesh! You have to go back to 19fucking76 to find a disgruntled
and embittered ex-associate! Out of context, and again without
Nader's side. Blatant assertions of unsubstantiated opinion and
irrelevant.

> Jay Leno: "What do you do for fun?" Nader: "Strawberries" -- The Tonight Show

Out of context. *I* saw it. It was Nader's poor attempt at humor
to a silly question when HE wanted to talk SUBSTANCE instead.

> "Information is the currency of democracy. It's denial must always be suspect."
> -- Ralph Nader

Context? When? Why? Cite!

> A HUGE hypocrite:

Blatant assertion based on innuendo and snarky ad homs. Most of
this is so OLD! IF there were anything solid on Nader, it would
have been discovered and PROVEN years ago! THIS is all mere
opinion and supposition from the realchange smear site.

> Nader wraps himself in the mantle of "public interest" with a personally
> ascetic style and a focus on structural or "apple pie" issues -- consumer
> safety, corporate accountability, "citizen power" -- rather than traditional
> partisan issues. He opposes not conservatives, but arrogant corporate leaders
> who amass money through public tax breaks, deny any democratic input or
> inquiry, and viciously attack anyone who challenges them. It's a brilliant
> strategy.

And who has shown any non-truth to it? He's been consistent and
voluble for years on this.

> Unfortunately, Nader has become exactly what he attacks.

So this unnamed source blatanly asserts. Where's the PROOF? WHY
should we believe HIS mere opining?

> His organizations allow
> no public input, intimidate foes and journalists, bust unions, hide almost all
> details of their finances (to the point of breaking laws),

To the point of? What does THAT mean? Were laws broken? ANY? Any
proof?

> and have amassed
> millions of dollars - all under Nader's direct and autocratic control.

Most of Nader's groups have been spun off and he has little or
no input at all.

> Meanwhile, Ralph has gotten rich off of investments in stock; in other words,
> by owning and profiting off the very corporations he is attacking. -- Sources
> -- Back to the top

Show that he's made money from "THE VERY" corporations he is
attacking! I KNOW he attacked Enron; any proof he profitted from
THEM? Where is the PROOF? Where are the specific examples? BTW,
this doesn't mention the vast majority of his income he gives TO
the groups he supports to do public works.

> Just another politician:
>
>> "Nader is as ravenous as a Nixon or a Kennedy, and the abstract principles he
> espouses he does not live by." -- Charles McCarry, "Citizen Nader"

Examples? Proof? Again, when written, and why? Why should we
believe THIS ink-stained wretch? These are simply MORE blatant
assertions of some yet-to-be-proved-credible nobody, taken out
of ANY context.

> Ralph's image is built on the idea that he is somehow pure,

According to who? This is a strawman fantasy BY this anonymous
source. Has Nader ever said as much?

> not motivated by
> power, fame or money like those nasty politicians. But he is in fact just
> another Washington lawyer and lifelong Beltway pol who has built a powerful
> organization, lobbies Congress, raises millions through direct mail and $1,000
> a plate dinners, gets paid tens of thousands by interest groups for his
> speeches, manipulates the press and overworks a lot of earnest young staffers.

See my response above. You could have said the same of Gandhi or
King.

> Even his presidential ambitions are old news. He claims to be running just to
> send a message, but Nader also ran for president in 1992 (running a write-in
> campaign in the New Hampshire primary, with little success). As far back as
> 1976, his media supporters (including Nicholas Van Hoffman and Mary McGrory)
> were plugging a draft Nader movement in their columns.
>
> It's fine for him to want power, fame and even money -- everyone else in
> Washington does -- but he ought to cut the holier-than-thou crap and take
> responsibility for his ambitions.

Cut? When is there any indication HE has exhibited such
behavior? It's only more projection based on unproven
assertions!

> No one doubts that Ross Perot -- who spent $60 million out of pocket on his last
> campaign -- has huge personal ambitions, whatever good he may accomplish as a
> candidate. Why should we think more of Ralph Nader, who has built a career
> flush with power, fame and money out of nothing else but his political actions
> in Washington?

Because Nader has actually accomplished positive things! Nader
has pointed out failings and has done things to address them,
more than any six presidential candidates of the last two
decades you can name!

> Nader is no better and no different than Jerry Falwell or Ralph Reed

Guilt by non-association! Just more name-calling without
evidence.

> -- nimble
> but unelected politicians who've made successful careers as self-appointed
> moralists.

> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Anti-Democratic Authoritarian:
>
> Saint Ralph loves to preach about democracy and "citizen power", but he runs
> his carefully concealed empire with an iron grip.

See original response above. This is just more blatant
assertions.

> Of 19 groups associated with
> Nader, the most powerful and important groups are all directly controlled by
> Nader or completely under his influence and no one else's. With some groups,
> Nader is the only contributor; others are controlled by his sister, Laura Nader
> Milleron, or his cousin.
>
> And there is nothing democratic about Nader's groups -- citizens have no power
> at all.

THAT is not the purpose of having an organization; it's to
accomplish a goal. It's all clear if you don't come with
pre-conceived and hateful agendas as this anonymous author does.

> Of 19 groups in Nader's network, only one relatively minor one is a
> membership organization, which would allow individuals to vote and challenge
> the decisions of the small elite running them. The groups' managers operate in
> strict secrecy, releasing the absolute legal minimum of information, and
> sometimes not even that. And when Nader IS challenged, he gets vindictive and
> often attacks his questioner.

Proof? Examples? Cites? What is the point?

> Nader and his PIRG groups also fought for (and got) a very coercive funding
> mechanism -- dues charged automatically to all college students, whether they
> support Nader or not.

It's to support the GROUP, not Nader! Nader has no involvement
in ANY PIRG groups for years!

> Beyond the hypocrisy, this authoritarian streak is very dangerous in a potential
> president -- presidents have tremendous power, and the most important check on
> it is simply their personal honor and unwillingness to abuse power.

Show any examples of Nader betraying his trust or honor, or
abusing public power. *I* have never caught him in a lie!

> Nader has
> never shown these traits, much less an ability to make tough decisions that are
> fair to his enemies. Of course, he hasn't had much power to abuse -- yet.
> Anyone considering voting for him should think twice -- or three times -- about
> that.

Blatant assertions and speculation. THIS could be said about
ANYONE! But where are any FACTS? This is just personal attack
and snarkiness!

> Sources -- Back to the top

WHERE? WHO? WHEN?

> Secret luxury house:
>
> The Nader myth

Blatant assertion! Make up something, don't prove it, and thus,
since nobody else has heard of it, one punctures a made-up
(here) myth! The only "Nader myth" is the one this anonymous
author fabricates!

> is built in large part of stories of his personal asceticism --
> such as taking a minuscule salary,

Any proof he doesn't?

> not owning a car (he bums lots of rides),

Any proof he DOES own a car?

> and living (through the 1970s at least) in a boarding house with a bathroom
> down the hall.

Sheesh, only 30 year old claims! Is that the best you can do?

> He claims to live on $5,000 a year and give nearly all the rest
> to his organizations.

I've never seen that $5K figure! Care to cite where Nader
claimed this? I've seen figures closer to 30-40K in actuall
expenses for personal living. And that he does give most of his
book and speaking fee income to the groups he wishes to support.
Do YOU?

> Back in 1996, we noted that Nader had long earned hundreds of thousands of
> dollars per year in speaking fees -- over $250,000 annually even in the
> mid-1970s --

And a sharp lawyer of his talent (look at John Edwards!) could
have been worth tens or hundreds of millions IF that is what he
did with his talent! Do you begrudge him earning a living IF
people are willing to pay to hear him speak? Is Cokie Roberts
worth $50K PER SPEECH? Or any number of celebrities who
routinely pull in that kind of money?

> played the stock market and carefully avoided making details of
> his finances public,

Don't you believe in privacy? He has revealed whatever the law
requires. Who's the hypocrite now?

> even as he demanded that various corporations and other
> politicans reveal their money dealings.

As the law requires! Care to show that Nader is under the same
requirements, or has broken any laws?

> He has steadfastly refused to make his tax returns public (as Dole and Clinton
> have done).

When was THAT written? He made all required figures public in
2000.

> In 1996 he even says he spent less than $5,000 on his campaign so
> that he wasn't required to file even the minimal financial disclosure forms
> every other candidate is filing.

So? If he didn't go over the mark, he wasn't required to!

> This time he had to admit spend more than $5,000, and his financial disclosure
> -- while sketchy -- revealed that he is a multimillionaire who makes hundreds
> of thousands on speeches each year

How much does Ollie North or Newt Gingrich make? At $50K or more
PER speech, it doesn't take much heavy lifting to make hundreds
of thousands, does it? Add book fees too, while you're at it,
and it is still WAY less than he COULD be making IF that was his
only goal in life. And, with the stock market bust, he's
probably at half or a third of his 2000 value. But, is that
illegal? What kind of FAR LEFT guy plays the market, anyway?

> and owns over $1 million in Cisco stock
> alone.

So? Probably not worth THAT much any more! Do you begrudge him
for wisely investing at the time in a growing tech stock? Did he
have Enron stock? Global Crossing? Exxon?

> (Nader still refused to release his tax returns, though all other major
> candidates have done so for the last many years.)

Nader complied with ALL disclosure laws and requirements!

> His lifestyle claims are bullpucky in other ways, too. His speaking gigs often
> include first class hotels and and meals, even limousines,

If THEY are willing to pay, what business is that of YOURS?
Unless he wears a hairshirt and eats gruel YOU won't be
satisfied?

> and the many
> organizations he controls -- that's where his tax-deductible contributions go
> -- have many ways to cover his expenses as well. Plus, there is considerable
> evidence that he does own and stay in one or more houses. He acknowledges
> spending considerable time at a "family house" in Connecticut, and he appears
> to own a townhouse in Washington.

More blatant ad hom assertions. Yes, his family has a house in
CT, but if he DID own a townhouse in DC, that would be more than
"appears"! Where's the proof?

> David Sanford of the New Republic documented that residents of a posh
> neighborhood in Washington -- on Bancroft Place NW -- often spotted him
> sneaking into an expensive house there.

Which could mean anything. So what? Any evidence of crime or
theft?

> Some investigation showed that Nader's
> brother purchased the house -- worth $100,000 even back in 1972 -- though he
> was an underemployed educational "consultant" and had no education beyond high
> school. Nader issued a statement "that he does not live in his brother's
> Bancroft Place house", but when a now-former worker (Lowell Dodge) asked him
> privately, he wouldn't deny it.

Ah, proof by non-denial!

> When the Washington Post's then-society columnist Maxine Cheshire asked Nader
> about the reports, he knew every detail of the house's financing and couldn't
> resist rhapsodizing about what a great tax break buying a house was. "He talks
> about that real estate investment the way some men talk about sex. He's so
> excited about the whole idea of tax write-offs and all that. I mean, did I
> realize that that's the greatest investment you can make, the biggest tax
> advantage, bla bla bla bla bla bla."

And this prove exactly WHAT?

> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Owned by the trial lawyers' lobby:
>
> Nader always received lots of funding from trials lawyers,

Prove it! When trial lawyers were brought up by Tim Russert on
Meet the Press, Nader laughed and dismissed any support by them
as a group.

> and in return has
> supported their interests throughout his career. For all his talk of democracy,
> Nader's vision is of an elite of lawyers -- led of course by himself --

More blatant assertions! Prove that Nader has said or "visioned"
any such thing!

> defending the little guy, much more than true "citizen power". He confided to
> Charles McCarry his dream of having 4,000 to 5,000 "professionals" around the
> country to battle business nationwide.

And that's a BAD thing?

> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Busted a union among his workers:

False. See above.

> Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at
> one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working
> conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the
> union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across
> America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a
> union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000
> down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who
> remains unapologetic to this day.

And was Nader, other than the following snippet, given equal
time to give HIS version of events?

> Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause'
> organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."

> When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader
> immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends
> who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When
> Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were
> changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own
> work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two
> supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to
> drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of
> these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader
> makes no apology.

See comments above. Was Nader given equal time to respond?

> According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades…you can't have
> work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary"
> according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small
> public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they
> paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard
> work rules, such as the eight-hour day.

And those who sign on should know what to expect! Any evidence
that this isn't an accurate description?

> Remember that Nader's well-funded
> organizations were amassing tons of extra money

EXTRA money? Prove it! Show that Nader saw any of IT!

> that Ralph has been playing the
> stock market with during all these events.

With money made by HIS books and HIS speaking fees,
strawslinger! Implications that he used NON-PROFIT moneys to buy
PERSONAL stock are beneath contempt.

> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Abuses workers --
>
> "How can we go out and try to save the world from people when we're grinding
> people to death all the time?"-- John Esposito, original staffer at Nader's
> Center for the Study of Responsive Law

Grinding people to death? I doubt it! Hey, did anyone work
harder than Nader himself?

> "Nader strikes me as conforming to the stereotype people have of sociologists
> and politicians: they bleed for the poor and downtrodden but mistreat their
> maids." -- David Sanford

More snarky blatant assertions of unsubstantiated opinion.
"Strike me as"! "Conforming to the stereotype people have"! What
third-hand accusations! Any proof Nader 'mistreated his maid'?

> Like many Washington politicians, Ralph Nader's groups have long taken
> advantage of earnest young ambitious workers, with two differences; Nader was
> more controlling and paid far less. In 1976, many were paid $5,000 per year and
> only a few at the top made as much as $20,000. (Nader's organizations refuse to
> release information on what they pay workers.) Meanwhile, Nader required daily
> logs of everything the workers did from 7am to 9pm, plus monthly summaries of
> these logs. If you didn't turn in your logs, you didn't get paid.

So? Nobody HAD to work for Nader's groups, did they?

> Nader often called workers after midnight or on sunny weekend days, with
> instructions, or just to test their willingness to work hard. When a revolt
> over working conditions broke out in the Congress Project and students demanded
> a group session with Nader, he contemptuously scheduled a meeting at 7:00 am,
> believing that few would show up.

So? Nobody HAD to work for Nader's groups, did they?

> 9 marriages of staffers broke up under the pressure, including John and Nancy
> Esposito's, Mark Green's, Sid Wolfe's, and Davitt McAteer's.

And NADER alone was the cause? Marriages OUTSIDE of Nader orgs
NEVER break up independent of Nader being THE cause? Sheesh.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

> What makes this meanness worse is that Nader claims to be defending workers --
> for example in opposing the GATT treaty --

Workers in the private workplace are NOT in the same boat as
often well-to-do children of privilege who CHOSE to work for
Nader groups. There were no illusions of what the job would
entail, and they were not naive.

> and that his organizations have a
> huge surplus of money,

Prove it.

> accumulating millions of dollar with which Ralph has
> played the stock market.

Prove it! Prove that he used NON-PROFIT contributions to
personally buy stocks, as opposed to using his own fees and
royalties! This is just more blatant assertion of ad hom
slander.

> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Amassing millions of dollars and playing the stock market with it:

So you blatantly opine! Where's the proof?

> Unlike almost every other nonprofit organization, Nader's various groups often
> amass a nontaxable profit of several hundred thousand dollars per year, and
> have rapidly build up impressive net worth's -- which Ralph refuses to reveal
> in his annual reports. (His lame reply is that people who are interested can
> get the information by getting every year's annual report and doing the math.
> So much for openness.)

So much for the law! Nader is not required to reveal more than
the law requires! Any proof that any laws are being violated?

> The book "Abuse of Trust" carefully documents the money amassed and stocks
> played for 6 major groups, including Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for
> the Study of Responsive Law, his two largest groups. Public Citizen, Inc., in
> particular, amassed money so quickly that it bought an old FBI building for
> $1.25 million IN CASH in 1980, only its eighth year of existence.

Any laws broken? Any proof Nader used non-profit money
illegally?

> One reason he may hide his ample cash reserves -- besides the fact that people
> may not want to give him more money -- is that he is fond of playing the stock
> market with that green. (He also uses surpluses from his most flush
> organizations, usually the tax deductible ones, to give grants to his other
> groups.) Some of these transactions appear reckless for a nonprofit, "public
> interest" group; others skirt the edges of insider trading and conflict of
> interest. Mostly, it seems that all this money was a toy that Nader enjoyed
> playing with, especially as his winnings increased his power, fame and
> influence.

This is all snarky blatant assertion and slander. Where's the
proof?

> For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety
> Research Institute.

Is he still? When was this written?

> In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times,
> buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had
> $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high
> risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years,
> PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and
> charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk
> threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did
> not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with
> fewer, generally long positions.

Any laws broken? I notice PSRI is mentioned, NOT Nader! Why?

> Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF)
> -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a
> number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was
> also fined by the IRS and paid without contest.

There are many reasons for NOT contesting an IRS challenge
(which COULD be politically motivated, or didn't you know that
during Nixon's years the IRS was used to attack and harrass
enemies?) that have nothing to do with guilt.

> Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by
> selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock
> of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the
> primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would
> offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half
> months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National
> Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan
> Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of
> steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until
> there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered.

Any proof that laws were broken? Nader had enough enemies that
if any of this could be made to stick, it would have been done
so. Where's Nader's responses to these charges?

> In 1970, IT&T attempted to merge with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Nader
> filed a 50 page brief attacking the merger, then SSF sold IT&T stock short. It
> made almost 10% on its money in 6 DAYS, then closed its position two days
> before the merger was approved. When pressed by a reporter, Nader said the
> timing was "mere coincidence" and said he had no control over the investment.
> However, his sister Laura Nader Millerson was the sole trustee of SSF
> throughout its existence, and Nader was the sole contributor.

Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc.

> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Secrecy and stonewalling:
>
> Ralph exhibits a driven secrecy and paranoia reminiscent of no one so much as
> Richard Nixon, his old enemy.

More snarky character assassination by comparison without
substantiation. See my old comments above.

> The man who said "information is the currency of
> democracy; its denial must always be suspect" routinely refuses to release even
> basic information about himself or his organizations. Granted, he has enemies,
> but this trait goes back to when no one knew of him. In the mid-1960s, before
> "Unsafe At Any Speed" made him famous, Nader wrote for the New Republic
> Magazine and often gave the secretary there a false name (Mr. Wilson) when he
> called or visited. Even then, he made some of his phone calls in whispers or in
> code to thwart possible wiretappers.

Blatant assertions and hearsay.

> Another Nixonian trait of Nader's is a tendency to cover-up.

Blatant assertion and character assassination by (unproven)
association.

> When pressed or
> challenged, he has lied,

Prove it! Examples and evidence!

> shunted responsibility onto his staff members, made
> them reconstruct documents, hidden his control over his own organizations,
> attacked the press or critics involved, or simply refused to release
> information with lame excuses.

So this anonymous whiner opines.

> There are many examples:
> -- Ralph refuses to release his tax returns (as Clinton and Dole have)

He didn't have to in 96!

> -- He even says he will spend less than $5,000 in this presidential campaign so
> he won't have to file the minimal financial disclosure all other candidates
> have filed.

And so he did and thus didn't have to disclose!

> -- Two of his top aides even refused to give the address of Nader's office to
> two Congressman who requested it at a Congressional Hearing.

Did the law require it? Don't you believe in privacy?

> -- His main group, Public Citizen,

Is he still in charge?

> has actively fought disclosure laws that
> would inform the public of the role that special interest groups -- such as his
> -- play in lobbying on legislation. (e.g. H.R. 81 in the 96th Congress)
> -- Public Citizen refused to give information to the Better Business Bureau or
> the similar NIB when requested.

What information? Who said they had to?

> -- He runs a network of organizations, which he claims are independent -- but
> his brother, sister and cousins hold major leadership positions with several,
> Nader heads advisory boards for others, and he is the only or major financial
> donor to 3 groups. Many other groups are funded in whole or in part by other
> groups in the network that Ralph does directly control.

Any laws broken? Any proof for these claims?

> -- Ralph even incorporated one of his groups -- the Public Safety Research
> Institute -- in Delaware, because of its notoriously lax corporate laws,

Any proof for THAT claim?

> -- As of 1982,

Sheesh! How old IS this crap? Any proof it is as claimed?

> his groups disregarded the charitable solicitation laws of 25 by
> not filing legally required registrations.

YOUR interpretation.

> At least 1 state (New York) had to
> pursue Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Responsive Law
> (Nader's 2 biggest groups) legally to try and force them to obey the law.

So you claim. That's THEIR claim. Or your interpretation.

> -- After the first attacks on him for being owned by trial lawyers, he
> distorted facts,

Prove it. All I see is the blatant assertion of unsubstantiated
opinion.

> attacked the press and forced am employee to create a false
> history to cover up the scandal. The employee, Lowell Dodge, later fell out
> with Nader and revealed this cover-up.

So how do we know he's telling the truth? Maybe he was just
getting revenge? And this is just secondhand interpretation.

> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Vindictive toward critics:
>
> Another authoritarian trait of Nader's is his inability to tolerate any
> criticism. Journalists who question his excesses are inevitably accused of
> personal vendettas, or being tools of industry.

And maybe they are! Do YOU like being criticized? I don't! But
that doesn't mean he isn't correct.

> Politicians get worse: Nader called one Congressman who opposed the Consumer
> Protection Act "a disgustingly repulsive, slimy double-crosser." He called
> another a "pathological liar" and a "corrupt, lying anti-people crook."

Context? Details? Maybe he WAS just that!

> His
> crime? Opposing a bill to mandate air bags.

Maybe. But was THAT why Nader purportedly said what is claimed?

> Nader went on to say that people
> who opposed mandatory airbags were the kind that would "sell thalidomide to
> pregnant women."

Context? Details?

> Even his own workers face Ralph's wrath for leaving after years of grueling,
> underpaid and loyal work. James Fallows, author of a recent book critiquing the
> media, worked for Nader at the start of his career. He wrote: "I think you
> won't find many people who have had a pleasant parting with Ralph. It's usually
> pretty ugly when the separation comes, and I think it's largely that by leaving
> you seem to make a choice... a 'if you're not with us you're against us' sort
> of thing."

Opinion. Assertion. Bias.

> Penn State's Board of Overseers declined Nader's PIRG group's coercive funding
> and voted instead to let students check a box to make a donation (like
> presidential campaign funding on 1040 tax forms) -- a perfectly reasonable
> compromise. Nader blasted this plan as a "sabotage technique" and "tyranny 1776
> style," and then announced an investigation of the school's trustees for
> "conflicts of interest."

One-sided version of this.

> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Forced contributions to his college PIRG groups:
>
> College PIRG groups, which Nader founded and leads despite his denials of
> control,

Prove it.

> use an astonishingly undemocratic, even coercive funding mechanism
> that Ralph designed. Once a college approves, all students are automatically
> billed a few dollars out of their student fees to support the local PIRG. To
> avoid paying, students must make a special trip to the Registrar and fill out a
> form so they can get their $2-6 back.

This may be true for many organizations.

> Most don't of course, out of inertia or because they aren't even aware they're
> funding Ralph. That's why record and book clubs use the same mechanism. Nader,
> like most consumer advocates, opposes these billing methods as a rip-off -
> unless they fund his own groups. One PIRG worker estimated that at Penn State
> alone, forced payments would have brought in $270,000 a year, while a voluntary
> checkoff would only have raised $30,000
>
> These forced payments brought over a million dollars a year to PIRGs even back
> in the mid-1970s. (Nader's PIRG group won't release the total amount.) At least
> 145 colleges in 20 states were involved.
>
> When Penn State turned down this method in favor of a box students could check
> to donate, the PIRG refused it. Nader attacked the school viciously, as
> described above.

There's no 'description' only blatant assertion and selective
interpretation.

>
> Sources -- Back to the top
>
> Hypochondriac:
>
> By many accounts, Ralph has a fear of germs that may well be hypochondriacal.

By many accounts? So much for 'proof'!

Unable to deal with the message and what matters, this has
devolved into sheer personal hysteria and ad hom well poisoning.
As I said, Jesus was treated the same!

> When he was interviewed in July 2000 for CNN, his main concern before the
> interview was "Did you wash that [earpiece]?". According to his former editor
> David Sanford, Nader refuses dinner invitations from anyone with pets, because
> he thinks cats cause leukemia, and simply hates dogs.

I repeat from earlier:

I guess one could write a similarly smarmy portrait of any great
figure from Jesus to St. Francis to Gandhi to ML King, but what
would it prove? That they had some human frailties, as do any of
us? That they had envious, small-minded enemies acting like the
pickpocket who, when he sees a holy man, sees only his pockets?
Even if some of these shortcomings were true, and I have no way
of knowing how accurate they are, they would not weaken the
validity of the message Nader propounds, nor the value of the
work he has done. Compared to the shortcomings of previous
presidents, or those of the other candidates shredded at this
site, Nader comes out quite well by comparison.

> Sources -- Back to the top
>

And just what ARE the sources?

>
> Sources
>
>
> <"http://www.earth1.net/~ricjan/yates.html">"Nader is a Pain in the Ass", by
> Brock Yates, The Windmill, November 1971
>

Wow, 1971! So much for timely, relevant material!

> ----------Anti-democratic Authoritarian Sources
>
>
>
> "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery
> Gateway) 1982 p16-17

Over 20 years old!

> --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Hypocrite Sources
>
>
> "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
> 1976, p19-20

Almost 30 years old! Talk about grasping at straws!

> "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery
> Gateway) 1982

More old crap.

> --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Secret Luxury House sources
>
>
> "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
> 1976, p23-26
>
> "Ralph Nader, Inc.", Forbes Magazine, September 17, 1990 p119, 122

And THEY have no bias against one who attacks corrupt
corporations!

> --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Owned by the Trial Lawyers Sources
>
>
> "Dems Step Up to Well-Stocked Plaintiff Bar", Wall Street Journal, September 4,
> 1992 pA6/A8

WSJ! THEY'RE objective! And where's the actual PROOF?

> "Forbes' Raid on Nader", Washington Post, September 10, 1990 pB1, B10
>
> "Public Citizen's Non-Disclosure", Wall Street Journal, March 17, 1992 pA14
>
> "Ralph Nader is a bargain for trial lawyers at $1,000 a table", by L. Gordon
> Crovitz, Wall Street Journal, November 14, 1990 pA15

Nader speaks to LOTS of groups; is he "owned" by students
because he speaks to lots of colleges?

>
> "Naderite Mossbacks Lose Control Over Corporate Law", Wall Street Journal, June
> 24, 1992
>
> "Tortmeisters In the Sun", Wall Street Journal, October 30,1990 pA18
>
> "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
> 1976, p33-42
>
> "Ralph Nader, Inc.", Forbes Magazine, September 17, 1990 p119, 122
>
> "L. Ron Nader" (editorial), Wall Street Journal, June 25, 1991

Yes, when you want the objective truth, go to a WSJ editorial!

> "A Chink In Nader's Armor?", Leah Young, The New Republic, September 2, 1972

Is there? 1972!!!

> --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Just a Politician Sources
>
> Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1996
>
> $1000/plate: "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt,
> (Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p14-15

Opinion or proof?

> 1976 run - "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New
> Republic Books) 1976, p1-5 --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Union Busting Sources
>
> "Anti Labor Chapter Surfaces in Nader's Past ", by Heather Szerlag, Pacifica
> Radio News, October 31, 2000 (starting at 10:45 into the half hour broadcast -
> slide your RealAudio player forward to that point.)

Claims aren't proof. One side isn't the whole story.

> "Union Buster? The NADER?", by Nick Mamatas, Greenwich Village Gazette, Vol. 5,
> #44, September 15, 2000

Another question mark! Why? Because maybe it's all just claims
and no proof?!!!

> "1.75 Cheers For Ralph", Left Business Observer, October, 1996 (see the section
> "Ralph As Boss")
>
> "Nader Is A Union Buster" (email), by Tim Shorrock (one of the fired workers),
> The Sixties-L Listserv, June 27, 2000

See above.

> "Editors Claim Firing By Nader Based on Unionization Attempt," by Peter Perl,
> Washington Post, June 28, 1984 pB3

And Nader's response is...?

> --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Abusing Workers Sources
>
> "The Low-Paid Affluent in Public-Interest Work", by S. Robert Lichter and
> Stanley Rothman, New York Times, July 18, 1983 (letter to the editor responding
> to Nader's charges in the next article)

Hmmm, 'low-paid affluent' Yes, many of those who basically were
VOLUNTEERING were NOT in NEED of funds!

> "Washington Talk Briefing: One Survey, Two Views", by James Clarity and Phil
> Gailey, New York Times, June 29, 1983, pA14
>
> "Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford (New Republic Books)
> 1976, p60-65
>
> --- Back to the top
>
> ----------Amassing Money Sources
>
> Ralph Nader's official financial disclosure form for year 2000, Open Secrets web
> site
>
> "Inside Nader's stock portfolio", by Jake Tapper, Salon Magazine, October 28,
> 2000

There was a concerted and scurrilous effort to bash and trash
Nader in 2000; NO irrelevant facts were too low or off limits to
the GoreWhore patrols!

> "Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network", Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery
> Gateway) 1982 p81-95
>
> "Nader Pays $1,250,000 Cash for Old Office Building", Ann Zimmerman,
> Washingtonian, June 1980, p11 (cited in Abuse of Trust)
>
> "Nader Undaunted by Setbacks to Consumer Drive", Joseph Lleyveld, New York
> Times, November 24, 1975 p1

LOOK at how old and hoary this all is! THAT'S how little there
is to pin on Ralph after all these years! That's how far they
have to dig to find such slim and questionable pickings!

Jokes now stand in for political discourse!

> Denial of information is suspect quote -- "Abuse of Trust" 1982 citing "Ralph
> Nader Reports", Ladies Home Journal, September 1973,

There's a serious political publication! 1973!

> Sanford quote -- "Me and Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?", David Sanford
> (New Republic Book Company) 1976 Introduction (pX)
>
> sweatshops quote -- "Me and Ralph", p62
>
> Ralph Redux? by Micah L. Sifry, The Nation, November 6, 2003
>
> --- Back to the top

Consider and respond to the following:

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank03182004.html

Perhaps the Green and Reform Parties are on to something, and

> Plonk

Here's some more:

Kerry vs. Kerry-lite

> Try this on for size, whiner; here's my standard response to

Gorebots like you since 2000, and I'll let you apply it to the
Kerry/Bush race this year:

50 million Bush voters, Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, the SCotUS,
and Gore's incompetence put Bush in the White House.

All the math, polls, logic, common sense, and other evidence
that has been presented to date won't move GoreWhores in denial
from their asinine nonsense position.

Hey, Al From, Mr. DLC himself, has called off the
Nader-bashing. Take a hint:

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2001/2001L-01-24-15.html

[GW Chimpzilla]

Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:

> In article <405EE8E3...@thank-you.com>, Richard Schumacher wrote:
>> Only if you want to help re-elect Bush
>
> Everybody keeps repeating that as if it's some kind of
> self-evident truth. It's not.
> Try to prove Nader's run in 2000 didn't *INCREASE* Gore's tally
> in that election.
> You can't.
>
> It's just as "likely" Nader brought millions of Dems out
> to vote for Gore because they were scared of the
> "spoiler effect." Without Nader, they would have stayed
> home and let Bush win by a landslide.

How likely is your statement? Got any exit polls from 2000 to back up your
fantasy?

[John Ladasky]

"Cameron L. Spitzer" <spam...@merde.greens.org> wrote in message news:<slrnc65066....@truffula.sj.ca.us>...

Shuts them up every time, doesn't it?

--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw.
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.

[Steve Krulick]

GW Chimpzilla wrote:
>
> Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:
>
> > In article <405EE8E3...@thank-you.com>, Richard Schumacher wrote:
> >> Only if you want to help re-elect Bush
> >
> > Everybody keeps repeating that as if it's some kind of
> > self-evident truth. It's not.
> > Try to prove Nader's run in 2000 didn't *INCREASE* Gore's tally
> > in that election.
> > You can't.
> >
> > It's just as "likely" Nader brought millions of Dems out
> > to vote for Gore because they were scared of the
> > "spoiler effect." Without Nader, they would have stayed
> > home and let Bush win by a landslide.
>
> How likely is your statement? Got any exit polls from 2000 to back up your
> fantasy?

I've already posted the evidence but YOU simply ignored it!

Though I doubt Bush would have won by a landslide (except, of
course, that Gore played the "spoiler" and "siphoned" millions
of votes that otherwise would have gone to BUSH... or perhaps
Nader... had he simply not run ;)).

Again, Al Gore WON the election! So why blame Ralph for helping

GORE WIN, just as I demonstrated, but YOU snipped away?!!

Read it all again, and dispute the numbers and logic. If you
dare; along with the other posts of mine you've simply defaulted
on, anonymous lying coward:

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2001/2001L-01-24-15.html

> > The Dems are going to keep losing as long as they stick

> > to their foolish and misguided "run to the center" strategy.
> > Nader and the Greens can help them some, but not enough
> > to overcome the poor Dem candidates.
> > Blaming Nader and the Greens isn't going to change that.
> >
> >
> > Cameron

--

[Cameron L. Spitzer]

In article <hjF8c.92111$Cb.1204461@attbi_s51>, GW Chimpzilla wrote:
> Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:
>
>>

>> It's just as "likely" Nader brought millions of Dems out
>> to vote for Gore because they were scared of the
>> "spoiler effect." Without Nader, they would have stayed
>> home and let Bush win by a landslide.
>
> How likely is your statement? Got any exit polls from 2000 to back up your
> fantasy?

Exit polls which ask a meaningless question are meaningless.

The question "Who did you just vote for for President?" is
easy to answer. Everybody understands it, they have the
information, and most people answer truthfully and easily.

The question "Who would you have voted for had the choices
been different" is not so easy. It's a profound question,
which can only be answered meaningfully by someone with training
in advanced mathematics or philosophy. The vast majority of
people asked such a question don't even realize how different
it is from the previous one. The voters in the exit poll
didn't know. The pollsters don't know.
The pundits who quote the pollsters don't know.
*You* don't even know. And they don't even know they don't know.
And the correct answers, which are along the lines of
"there is no way to know" and "that's a meaningless question"
are not even on the list of answers the pollsters would accept.
It was a multiple choice question and all the choices were wrong!

(In computer operations we call a polling exercise like that
"garbage in, garbage out.")

Therefore, exit polls about "who would you have voted for
if Nader had not been running" are nonsense, and their results
are worthless.

NOBODY KNOWS. THERE IS NO WAY *TO* KNOW. There isn't even
a way to calculate "likelihood" or "probability." That's not
how the universe works.

People with no mathematical or scientific training often say
"likely" when they mean "plausible." Plausibility of
alternate historical outcomes is a matter of emotional
belief and preference, not one of probability and statistics.
It's a matter of choosing a few scenarios that make you feel
good from an INFINITE set of possibilities.

It is true that many people WISH REALLY HARD that if Nader
had not run then Gore would be President. Their hard wishes
make that outcome more plausible than the Bush landslide
without Nader scenario. They WISH the problem were a matter of
addition and subtraction instead of one of comparing the sizes of
two infinite sets, because it gives the answer they wish for
and because they don't know HOW to compare two infinite numbers.
It's an emotional belief. It's got nothing
whatever to do with objective reality.

A great engineer once said "hope is not a valid design
methodology." Well, wishing really hard is not a valid
computational methodology, no matter how many talking heads
on television do it. Sorry.

Cameron

[Steve Krulick]

"Cameron L. Spitzer" wrote:
>
> In article <hjF8c.92111$Cb.1204461@attbi_s51>, GW Chimpzilla wrote:
> > Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> It's just as "likely" Nader brought millions of Dems out
> >> to vote for Gore because they were scared of the
> >> "spoiler effect." Without Nader, they would have stayed
> >> home and let Bush win by a landslide.
> >
> > How likely is your statement? Got any exit polls from 2000 to back up your
> > fantasy?
>
> Exit polls which ask a meaningless question are meaningless.
>
> The question "Who did you just vote for for President?" is
> easy to answer. Everybody understands it, they have the
> information, and most people answer truthfully and easily.

Easy? I remind you of an anomalous series of polls from 2000
AFTER the election that asked just that, and look what the
results were; these posts were from Feb 2001:

There's now some serious doubt that Nader failed to get the
hoped-for 5%; local election boards have been notorious in
ignoring registrations and votes by third-party members. (I, for
example, registered as a Green nearly a year ago, but I never
got a card or anything from the BOE. When the new rolls came out
in December, since in NY your reg change doesn't go into effect
until AFTER the election, I was not on it as a Green, nor were
at least a dozen others in my county I KNOW OF, who were also
Greens. When I called the local BOE, they said I was still
unenrolled in any party, so I asked them to look up my records,
telling them when I changed enrollment. Sure enough, they got
the request, but filed it away without making the change
official! I had them do it, sending my a copy for proof, and
told the Green Party locals about this, which led to others
finding out the same thing. I also worked as a poll watcher on
election day, and when the closing and counting took place, most
of the Republicrat inspectors were just eager to get home, so
they rushed and ran through the machine numbers as quickly as
possible. If I hadn't been there, I don't know if anyone else
would have caught an error that had one candidate's number
misread. That they had to even deal with any but Dems and Reps,
and God forbid, A WRITE-IN!, made me wonder how many places just
figured nobody would notice the undercounting.

How many Nader votes were simply not counted? Look at this
Zogby/Reuters poll from this site:
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=308 :

The Reuters survey conducted the day before Thanksgiving by
Zogby International of 604 likely voters nationwide has with a
margin of error of +/- 4.0%.

In the recent election for President, the candidates were
Democrat Al Gore, Republican George W. Bush, Reform Party's Pat
Buchanan, Green Party's Ralph Nader. For whom did you vote?

1. Gore 45%
2. Bush 44%
3. Buchanan *%
4. Nader 6%
5. Someone else 1%
6. Not sure 5%

Which of the candidates would you prefer to be president--
Democrat Al Gore, Republican George W. Bush, Reform Party's Pat
Buchanan, Green Party's Ralph Nader?

1. Gore 46%
2. Bush 45%
3. Buchanan 1%
4. Nader 5%
5. Someone else 2%
6. Not sure 3%

----------

Although I do wonder about the 5% who weren't sure who they
voted for (unless this includes those who, like the Palm Beach
yentas who probably voted for Buchanan, those who can't be sure
their votes were properly tallied), why would SIX percent of
people claim they DID vote for Nader, knowing he didn't win, and
knowing that there are people who will give them the hairy
eyeball for admitting it? There are many people, particularly
Democrats, who were more concerned with Nader getting 5% than
whether Bush won, since THAT'S where the real threat is to their
power.

But that wasn't all.

In late December 2000, another poll found 10 percent stating
they had voted for Nader!

Either the election machinery was severely broken, or the polls
are, or it isn't even so "easy" to simply recall who one
actually DID vote for!

[Wm Dawol]

In article <c09b237b.04032...@posting.google.com>, lad...@my-deja.com says...

> "Cameron L. Spitzer" <spam...@merde.greens.org> wrote in message news:<slrnc65066....@truffula.sj.ca.us>...
> > In article <MPG.1ac8992a5...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> > some anonymous fool wrote:
> > > In article <405EE8E3...@thank-you.com>, no-...@thank-you.com says...
> > >> Only if you want to help re-elect Bush and wipe out Nader's legacy of
> > >> environmentalism and consumer protection.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > wise up, Nader support is from Republicans
> >
> > Prove it. Your bluff is called.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cameron
>
> Shuts them up every time, doesn't it?
>

Not so fast, ace:

"Austin, Texas ? Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is
getting a little help from his friends ? and from George W. Bush's friends.

Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at
least $250 have a history of supporting the Republican president,
national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted
review of financial records by The Dallas Morning News. . . ."

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1106683/posts

[dapra]

Wm Dawol wrote:

So what does this prove? 1 out of 10 of Naders supporters is a
Republican. Though the Republicans are famous of walking in lockstep,
not all of them like Bushs performance.

The latest CBS poll;
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his
job as president?"

Republicans approve 84%, disapprove 11%. A tiny, tiny fraction of these
11% could make up the Republican Nader supporters ($250 or more donation).

What about the remaining 9 out of the 10? How do they split between
Democrats and Independents? 6:3 or 3:6, or some other ratio? Whatever it
is, could it be a justification to construct a conspiracy theory around it?

[John Ladasky]

Wm Dawol <seea...@lilpiggies.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ad93dfa9...@netnews.comcast.net>...

And what's the logical corollary to this finding? That OVER NINETY

percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at least $250

have NO history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP
candidates or the party.

And if you look at folks who contributed LESS than $250, what would
you find? I would guess that a) they're much more numerous than the
big donors cited by the axe-grinders at the Dallas Morning News, and
b) even fewer of them will have had any financial affiliation with the
GOP -- of the Democrats, for that matter.

A lot of people who have big bucks to contribute to politicians will
contribute to EVERYBODY. No matter who wins the elections, they have
purchased their "access". I would bet that, if you looked at Nader's
$250 Club, you would find that they have also contributed to
*Democratic* campaigns in greater numbers than their less-wealthy kin.

I have my own reasons for hesitating to support Nader in 2004. They
have nothing to do with "the lesser of two evils", "stealth
Republicans", or "spoiler effects."

[dapra]

John Ladasky wrote:
>
> I have my own reasons for hesitating to support Nader in 2004. They
> have nothing to do with "the lesser of two evils", "stealth
> Republicans", or "spoiler effects."
>

> John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.

What's your reason to hesitate? Anyone but Bush?

[John Ladasky]

dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<ffqdnZ8j3ds...@comcast.com>...

Basically, it comes down to Nader abandoning the Green Party.

My earlier, more detailed comments on the subject begin in this
article:

http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=c09b237b.0402131206.355b0691%40posting.google.com

William Kaufman answered me, and told me that I was mistaken. My
reply to Mr. Kaufman is here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=c09b237b.0402231205.809017c%40posting.google.com

--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw.

[~ MAIMED FOR OIL ~]

dapra wrote:

Kerry is 7 3/4 inches up the butt.

Bush is a full 8 inches.

Nader is a fully engorged vagina...

(this metaphor only works for heterosexual males & lesbians)

Pick your poison

or pick your conscience...

[dapra]

Wow! What a metaphor. I think it's a good one. But I do have problems of
picturing Nader, as delicious as you described him. Well, yeah it's only
a metaphor.