Mr Nader is cranky at John Kerry

[The Vorlon]

Nader Accuses Dems of 'Mini-Watergate'
Thursday, July 08, 2004
 
WASHINGTON — Democrats could be participating in a "mini-Watergate" effort to get Ralph Nader (search) out of the presidential picture, the consumer advocate charged Thursday.

"They're hiring lawyers to go up to technicalities in places like Arizona, they infiltrated our political convention," Nader, an independent candidate for president, told FOX News on Thursday. "I spoke to John Kerry and said 'you'd better look into it because it could be a mini-Watergate, possibly."

Nader said he hasn't yet heard back from the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, who is hoping to oust President Bush from the White House in the November elections.

"This is pretty serious, when you try to lock the civil liberties of American just to get on the ballot so people can vote for the candidate of their choice," Nader continued.

Nader was denied a spot on the Arizona ballot and last Friday again accused the Democrats and Kerry of engaging in political "dirty tricks."

Just hours before the developments in Arizona, Nader complained that the Democratic Party has "stepped up its obstruction tendencies" in challenging his ballot access. The consumer advocate said he had called the Kerry campaign three times last Thursday, asking to chat with the candidate.

"We have to get a clarification if they're going to engage in dirty tricks," Nader told reporters at a news conference to criticize multinational corporations.

The Kerry campaign dismissed Nader's complaints, arguing that Democrats were following the rules when they legally challenged Nader's signatures to get on the ballot. "These are rules that have been on the books for years and they ought to be followed," said Chad Clanton, who added that the Massachusetts senator would be happy to talk to Nader.

In Arizona, supporters of Nader abandoned their effort to get the independent candidate on the presidential ballot after Democrats challenged the validity of thousands of signatures.

Nader's campaign had submitted more than 22,000 signatures to Arizona election officials June 9 -- far more than the 14,694 valid signatures required by state law to compete against President Bush and Kerry.

"They really erect all kinds of barriers blocking voices and choices," Nader told FOX News of such alleged Democratic acts.

Although he's no fan of Republicans, the GOP "don't whine and carp like the Democrats," Nader said, adding that 10 times more Democrats "deserted the party" and voted for Bush in 2000 than voted for him.

When asked if Republicans are working behind the scenes to get him on the ballot, Nader said he doesn't know much about that but "we've seen lots of examples of Democrats trying to obstruct us … this is a fight for all third parties and independent candidates."

And with a reported 42 percent of Americans wanting troops to return from Iraq; over half of whom think it was mistake to send them there, Nader said, "there's no candidacy except the Nader-Camejo ticket speaking for them," adding that he provides the only anti-war platform for voters this year.

Nader is scheduled to debate former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in Washington on Friday. Dean was the front-runner in the Democratic primaries until his campaign seemed to internally combust; he later dropped out of the race.

"Dean really made his mark by being against the war now he's back into the fold so we'll have fun tomorrow," Nader said.

Nader told reporters last week that he expects to get on about as many state ballots as he did in 2000 when his name was listed in 43 states and the District of Columbia. So far, he has not gotten on any ballot independently.

Many Democrats blame Nader, the Green Party (search) candidate four years ago, for taking votes from Democrat Al Gore and helping ensure President Bush's election. He has been endorsed by the Reform Party (search), which has ballot lines in at least seven states.

Fox News' Liza Porteus and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 

[MODU]

I don't blame him, but this isn't anything new.  The two political powerhouses will play games with the smaller third-parties or independents if it works to their advantage.  Fortunately for our cause, Nader (like him or not) is getting a lot of coverage this year due to his influence last election.  If forget his name, but the DNC spokesperson didn't deny the fact that they will do everything possible to keep Nader off of the ballots.  Exposing such manipulation in the election process can only help solidify our desire for a third option.  It also shows how desperate the Democrats are this year.

[Keystone Phil]

and Mr Nader is a ing idiot and no one cares what he says.

What about the nearly 3 million that voted for him in 2000? Did they care? I think so

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

and Mr Nader is a ing idiot and no one cares what he says.

What about the nearly 3 million that voted for him in 2000? Did they care? I think so

I voted for Nadar in 2000, and I think he can go cheney himself. I will definitely not be voting for him again.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm quite thankful I couldn't vote in 2000, there's a good chance I would've voted Nader, and I would've felt so disgusted about that, even though it wouldn't have made a difference in the election. I would feel just as bad if I lived in Utah or DC and voted for him.

then again there was a valid reason to vote Nader in 2000, to get federal funds for the Green party. No reason this year.

[Smash255]

Are the Dems doing what the can to keep him off the ballots?  Yes.  Is it the so called right thing to do?  Probably not be if the exact same thing happened the opposite way (Dems won close in 2000 and the 3rd party candidate is what lost the election for the Reps & he was running again) the Republicans would do the same thing (btw Perot doesn't count because exit polls showed Clinton still would have won in 92 & in 96 Perot took from both equally)

Anyway bottom line is if Nader got all the signatures he needed LEGALLY he would have nothing to worry about no matter how many tricks the Dmes had up their sleeves, but he has gotten some "illegal" signatures and other things that don't follow the state laws so the Dems have every 'right to challenenge it.  Not saying they are doing the right thing, but if Nader got the names the way he was suppose to legally he would have nothing to worry about

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't think the Democrats would be trying so hard to keep him off the ballot anyway if he wasn't such a jerk. He says that Gore would've invaded Iraq also, that there is still no difference between Bush and Gore and no difference between Kerry and Bush either, that a safe state strategy is pointless and to vote for him wherever you live, and he's suprised the Dems aren't too pleased with him? Nader was just a total ass in 2000 concered more with hurting Gore than helping the Greens, and he's just being a total ass now.

Today he also did something to prove how more dumb he was, he says Gore should've been more concerned about the Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida than him. So let me get this straight Ralph, you first claim there is no difference between Bush and Gore, and now you argue Gore should've have tried to attract conservative Democrats who saw him as too liberal, therefore that would mean moving RIGHT. sure, you wouldn't have bashed him for doing so.

[MODU]

He has always stated that Gore lost due to his poor campaign, and not because of his presence in the election . . . which is partly true.  The DNC thought it was going to be a piece of cake, and it blew up in their face.  And after Florida, both parties looked like idiots.  

I don't really care for Nader himself, but he does have the right to campaign and try to get onto the ballots.  Having outside influence, like the Democrats, flooding the assembly hall where he was expected to get enough signatures for the ballot is just childish, and it shows how insecure the DNC is this year.  Personally, I think this year Nader will have a much greater impact on the Democrats, in regards to the election itself, by exposing these "dirty" tactics, causing the undecideds and independents to vote for anyone BUT Kerry.  I guess we'll have to wait and see on Nov 3 how this all plays out.

[Keystone Phil]

He has always stated that Gore lost due to his poor campaign,

Exactly. Gore cost Gore the election. Proving Gore ran a poor campaign -  Tennessee, the state that elected him to the Senate and voted for Clinton/Gore in '92 and '96. Tennessee went for Bush 51% to 47%. Once again, Gore cost himself the 2000 election.

[Smash255]

He has always stated that Gore lost due to his poor campaign, and not because of his presence in the election . . . which is partly true.  The DNC thought it was going to be a piece of cake, and it blew up in their face.  And after Florida, both parties looked like idiots.  

I don't really care for Nader himself, but he does have the right to campaign and try to get onto the ballots.  Having outside influence, like the Democrats, flooding the assembly hall where he was expected to get enough signatures for the ballot is just childish, and it shows how insecure the DNC is this year.  Personally, I think this year Nader will have a much greater impact on the Democrats, in regards to the election itself, by exposing these "dirty" tactics, causing the undecideds and independents to vote for anyone BUT Kerry.  I guess we'll have to wait and see on Nov 3 how this all plays out.

The Reps are doing the same kind of underhanded things to make sure Nader gets on the ballot.  For example diehard Bush supporters who have absolutley no intention of voting for Nader are signing the petitions

[Akno21]

He has always stated that Gore lost due to his poor campaign,

Exactly. Gore cost Gore the election. Proving Gore ran a poor campaign -  Tennessee, the state that elected him to the Senate and voted for Clinton/Gore in '92 and '96. Tennessee went for Bush 51% to 47%. Once again, Gore cost himself the 2000 election.

Both Gore and Bush did terribly in 2000. Gore was running as a continuement of peace and prosperity, and Bush had a lead in fundraising and an inspired base. However, for however bad Gore did, he came within 537 votes of winning the presidency. Gore's biggest mistake was hiring crummy lawyers, and not calling or total recounts in Florida immediatly. It is a testament to Clinton that Gore won/came within a hair of doing so even though his campaign was pretty bad.

[MODU]

Which would you think is fair?  Encouraging someone to become eligible to run for office, even if they do not have a chance in hell at winning, or barring a person from even trying?  Last time I checked, the latter isn't within the spirit of our nation.  

See, my view on this is, the Democrats are playing right into the Republican hands.  The Republicans let the DNC trash talk Nader for 3 years, blaming him for costing Gore the election, without getting involved.  Now, Nader gets into the media's limelight and exposes how the Democrats had not only attacked his presence in the last election, but are throwing up roadblock after roadblock to keep him out of this current election.  Once this hits the airways, the Republicans swing into the picture trying to support Nader who has as much right as anyone else to campaign to get onto the ballots, making the Republicans look like the good guys, and possibly win some of the independent votes which might have gone to Nader.

Now, with all the happy happy joy joy stuff out of the way, let's get down to the heart of the matter.  The Constitution doesn't limit how many people can run for President.  If a non-party affiliated person wants to work through all the existing hurdles (put in place by the Republicans and Democrats) to get onto the state ballots, the no one should bar him.  If he doesn't get enough signatures, then he doesn't make it.  No one should intentionally sabatoge his right to compete.  This is what the DNC is doing publicly, and it will most-likely cost them some of the ABB-independent votes out of protest, which in turn, has the same effect as if Nader was running to begin with.

[Smash255]

Which would you think is fair?  Encouraging someone to become eligible to run for office, even if they do not have a chance in hell at winning, or barring a person from even trying?  Last time I checked, the latter isn't within the spirit of our nation.  

See, my view on this is, the Democrats are playing right into the Republican hands.  The Republicans let the DNC trash talk Nader for 3 years, blaming him for costing Gore the election, without getting involved.  Now, Nader gets into the media's limelight and exposes how the Democrats had not only attacked his presence in the last election, but are throwing up roadblock after roadblock to keep him out of this current election.  Once this hits the airways, the Republicans swing into the picture trying to support Nader who has as much right as anyone else to campaign to get onto the ballots, making the Republicans look like the good guys, and possibly win some of the independent votes which might have gone to Nader.

Now, with all the happy happy joy joy stuff out of the way, let's get down to the heart of the matter.  The Constitution doesn't limit how many people can run for President.  If a non-party affiliated person wants to work through all the existing hurdles (put in place by the Republicans and Democrats) to get onto the state ballots, the no one should bar him.  If he doesn't get enough signatures, then he doesn't make it.  No one should intentionally sabatoge his right to compete.  This is what the DNC is doing publicly, and it will most-likely cost them some of the ABB-independent votes out of protest, which in turn, has the same effect as if Nader was running to begin with.

Some states such as Arizona you have to follow certain laws in order to get on the ballot.  What the Dems did there in getting Nader off the ballot really wasn't sabotaging, but drawing attention to THE LAW.  Botton line is in order to get the signatures for the Arizona ballot THE LAW wasn't followed.  Yes the Dems did make a big issue out of it and maybe oversteping their boundries, BUT NADER DID NOT FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE LAW TO GET ON THE BALLOT and thats why he didn't get on

[© tweed]

He will be co-hosting crossfire