Proof that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush

[Gentle Giant]

GOP is accused of aiding Nader
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff *|* August 11, 2004

New Hampshire Democrats, worried that Ralph Nader will siphon votes from Senator John F. Kerry in their state, angrily accused the state's Republicans yesterday of trying to undermine the Democratic ticket by helping Nader collect signatures he needs to get on the November ballot.

For the past 10 days, temporary workers hired by Norway Hill Associates, a Hancock firm headed up by a well-known GOP consultant, have been collecting signatures for Nader around the state. Last Friday, about a dozen workers buttonholed Bush supporters in the parking lot outside a Stratham farm where the president was speaking. They were armed with talking points instructing them to remind reluctant Republicans that "without Nader, Bush would not be president."

"In 2000 Nader got almost 30,000 votes; without his presence Al Gore would be president today," the talking points state. The talking points also instruct the workers to sidestep questions about who is paying them by responding that "Nader's campaign pays 75 cents a signature."

Bush defeated Al Gore by 7,000 votes in 2000; if Gore had won New Hampshire, the Granite State's four electoral votes would have sent him to the White House.

The New Hampshire Republican Committee and the Bush-Cheney campaign denied any direct involvement in the petition drive. But Kathy Sullivan, chairwoman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party said, "The whole thing sort of reeks."

"What happened here is that somebody woke up and said, 'Goodness gracious, the Nader people aren't very organized in terms of getting Nader on the ballot in New Hampshire,' " Sullivan said.

For months, Democrats have accused Republicans of aiding Nader's effort to get on the ballot in all 50 states, and in several of them the Democrats are planning legal challenges to block him. Several weeks before the GOP began its drive for Nader in New Hampshire, two conservative groups in Oregon admitted making phone calls urging supporters to help Nader get on the ballot there.

Emily Sawka -- a temporary worker from Kittery, Maine, who backed out of the Stratham signature effort and eventually handed over her talking points to the Democrats -- said that the petition drive "felt really unethical for me."

"It became clear to me what our position really was, what was really going on, that it was a campaign for Bush under the guise of campaigning for Nader," said Sawka, who added that she is an independent voter.

Backed by several former Nader supporters, the Democrats called on the Nader campaign yesterday to reject signatures collected by Norway Hill Associates.

Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said yesterday that the campaign is not working with Norway Hill and that it won't knowingly accept signatures collected by its temporary workers.

"We've told the Republicans we don't want their help, and we don't need their help," Zeese said. "If they give them to us we won't accept them. That's all we can do."

But Zeese acknowledged that it might be impossible to distinguish between the firm's signatures and those collected by its own volunteers.

To the Democrats' consternation, the Nader campaign has proclaimed publicly that it can't stop people from submitting signatures directly to the secretary of state. The campaign needs a total of 3,000 signatures, 1,500 from each of New Hampshire's congressional districts, to put Nader on the ballot.

"We're going to be on the ballot in New Hampshire," Zeese said. "The Democrats should accept that and move on."

David Carney, who heads Norway Hill, said he isn't sure how many signatures the firm has collected for Nader. Carney, who was former President George H.W. Bush's political director, says his goal is "ballot access and people being able to have a choice."

But he did not deny that he's a Bush backer or that Nader's presence on the ballot would probably help the president in New Hampshire.

In a poll conducted in July by the University of New Hampshire, 47 percent of likely voters favored Kerry, 43 percent supported Bush, and 4 percent backed Nader. Without Nader, Kerry was ahead of Bush, 50 percent to 45 percent.

"If the Democrats are so hellbent on keeping this guy off the ballot, there's got to be a good reason to get him on the ballot, don't you think?" Carney said.

Carney said that he hired the workers at the behest of a Missouri nonprofit called Choices for America, but that he will pay for the temporary workers himself. The Missouri group did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Sullivan suggested that Carney may have broken federal campaign finance laws because as a corporation, Norway Hill cannot make an in-kind contribution to a candidate. But Carney said the firm's donation was to Choices for America and that it didn't constitute a political contribution.

"This is not a political activity," he said. "This is clearly a ballot access issue, which is totally different from electioneering."

Jayne Millerick, chairwoman of the New Hampshire Republican Committee, also portrayed the issue as one of maximizing choices for voters.

"Up here in New Hampshire, the party leadership on the Democrat side has a long history of discouraging primaries on their ticket and anointing their candidates," she said. "It's very important to point out that the end result of their actions today is the Democrats saying they don't want someone to be on the ballot."*

[tippy]

The only time I want to vote for Nader is when people tell me not to.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

It's a slick tactic by the Republicans but what are you going to do? It's not illegal. Get over it.

[Root Doctor]

I was in Boston for a meeting at Berklee the day after the last presidential election. When I had fulfilled my professional obligations, I headed downtown to meet some folks for drinks. Two have been my closest friends since 7th grade (a long time--I'm 46), one of whom is a moderate Republican in the New England tradition like me, the other a Marxist (he's an Oberlin grad, it's part of the contract). Three were guys I knew from college, die-hard preppies (Exeter, Andover, Deerfield) and all to the right of Jesse Helms. The last was a grad school friend and best described as an old school Midwestern liberal. It turned out that all of us had voted for Ralph Nader. The consensus among the group was that Bush was about as qualified to be president as Drew Barrymore, that Gore was a stooge, and that Nader at least appeared to be a grown-up with a track record of achievement, regardless of what you might think of those achievements.

So, in my non-scientific, wholly personal way, I think Nader may draw away votes from both candidates, although the Democrats are likely affected more.

[Chris D]

Would you make the same vote today? I know almost all of the libs here -- who carried downtown wards for Nader -- are staying away from him in droves.

[tippy]

I don't believe that Nader will be an issue this time. I'm more concerned with whether there will be more monkeying with the votes than anything about Ralph Nader.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Chris D

Would you make the same vote today? I know almost all of the libs here -- who carried downtown wards for Nader -- are staying away from him in droves.

No, I certainly wouldn't. I was amused by Bush in 2000 (the malaprops, the circular definitions, the inability to fill more than 15 seconds of air time when forced to extemporize, the male cheerleader past), but I'm appalled by him today. He briefly rose to the occasion after 9/11, but he's taken us on the express train to hell since his eulogy at the National Cathedral. I have nothing but contempt for his hopelessly naive and uninformed foreign policy, which is really nothing more than a variation on the old Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals--"Hey, kids, why don't we put on a democracy?" Besides, it takes a special kind of leader who manages to polarize our country during a period of intense danger from abroad. As I've said before, Bush has a long history of not only screwing up a free lunch, but doing so repeatedly. His presidency is another case in point, and it's time for it to end.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by tippy

I don't believe that Nader will be an issue this time. I'm more concerned with whether there will be more monkeying with the votes than anything about Ralph Nader.

I agree, but I am a little upset by this unseemly Democratic campaign, not against the issues Nader espouses, but simply to discredit him. Flash (again) to the Democratic Party: if you want to consistently get progressive votes, then you damn well better support some progressive positions with something more than talk. Crap like this may make me stay away altogether and go back to my f**k the Dems stance.

[tippy]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

I agree, but I am a little upset by this unseemly Democratic campaign, not against the issues Nader espouses, but simply to discredit him. Flash (again) to the Democratic Party: if you want to consistently get progressive votes, then you damn well better support some progressive positions with something more than talk. Crap like this may make me stay away altogether and go back to my f**k the Dems stance.

I agree with you there, Al. Hence my initial reaction--I don't appreciate the Dems trying to guilt trip people into voting for them. It's disgraceful and the only time that I consider not pulling the lever on those ancient machines for them come November.

[Gentle Giant]

Progressive doesn't sell. Since Reagan, this country as a whole has settled slightly right of center. Clinton maintained his presidency by clearly leaning away from far left.

Now, if you're a Dem and you want to hear progressive posturing, and you're willing to vote that way (i.e., for Nader), then you'll be throwing Kerry on the Mondale/Dukakis/Gore dungheap. But if you truly care about abortion rights, the environment, and who gets to pick the next few Supreme Court justices, then vote the Democratic ticket.

That's not guilt, that's reality. Progressive is part of the Democratic tradition, but it'll be a long time before it's a viable and significant part of a national Democratic ticket and platform.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

Progressive is part of the Democratic tradition, but it'll be a long time before it's a viable and significant part of a national Democratic ticket and platform.

Then it'll be a long time before they can expect my vote, or the votes of millions of others, as a matter of course. The last election showed that actually the Democrats are in at least as much danger from their left as they are from their right, but they have taken our support for granted for so long that they don't seem to realize it. Instead they treat us, even for just speaking up, like we're some kind of traitors to thier "cause" (whatever the hell that is in the modern corporate-funded Dem Party).

If they are going to insult me by essentially trying to guilt trip me into feeling like a traitor, and then go and approve of crap like NAFTA, GATT, welfare "reform," immigration "reform," warrantless wiretaps, deregulation of monopoly utilities, privitization of the public patrimony, Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc. and do little or nothing substantive about health care, enforcement of labor laws, stopping the theft of social security and medicare funds, supporting the Bill of Rights, and building a humane non-imperialist foreign policy, then, like I said, f**k 'em, they're not the party for me. I may vote for Kerry in the practical interest of ending the current horror (although that isn't a certainty, since I live in NY), but they just can't expect me to be "loyal" to something that has no "loyalty" to me or my views. "We're not as bad as the other guys" is just plain not enough.

[tippy]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

If they are going to insult me by essentially trying to guilt trip me into feeling like a traitor, and then go and approve of crap like NAFTA, GATT, welfare "reform," immigration "reform," warrantless wiretaps, deregulation of monopoly utilities, privitization of the public patrimony, Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc. and do little or nothing substantive about health care, enforcement of labor laws, stopping the theft of social security and medicare funds, supporting the Bill of Rights, and building a humane non-imperialist foreign policy, then, like I said, f**k 'em, they're not the party for me.

You said a mouthful there, Al.

Another reality is that I get to vote for whomever I want.

[bobetterblues]

Originally Posted by tippy

You said a mouthful there, Al.

Another reality is that I get to vote for whomever I want.

Thank god there are still people out there who feel the way I do about the democrats. I'll be voting for Kerry, but It may just be the last time.

In the future, If this country allows a man like George Bush to be president again, and if John Kerry doesn't take care of business in some way, even if its just a couple minor things that are important to me (Which is highly unlikely) I'm done and I don't care what happens because of it.

I find it funny that this country actually voted for George Bush, in the primaries and the pres election, and I find it curious that Al Gore couldn't beat an idiot, when he was the vice president following 8 years of prosperity and a good economy.

Seriously, if this country can vote a man like Bush into office twice......then I may just have to check out.

Yeah, and its the Nader supporters that are at fault. Its not our fault that we live in a moronic society! We were trying to change that fact!

[Dr Dave]

I direct this not to Al personally but to all members of the left wing of the Democratic Party:

Ahem: Please vote for John Kerry for President. Please vote for Democratic members of the House and Senate. If you want action on healthcare, retention of your First Amendment rights, and a reasonable end to the Iraq misadventure, this is what you have to do. I promise you, voting for Ralph Nader WILL NOT GET YOU THESE THINGS.

For the rest of it, sorry man, nothing but Tough Love for you. The last big bout of protectionism, the Smoot-Hawley Act, needlessly extended the Great Depression. Protectionism has never worked, does not now work, and will not ever work. It is Dustbin of History material. There is nothing remotely "progressive" about it.

Now I'm really getting worked up: Do you mean to tell me that lefties, because they're not getting their due share of respect from their own party, will behave in such a way as to guarantee the re-election of a leader who is diametrically opposed to all the beliefs they hold dear? What a bunch of spoiled brats! What gall! What EGOTISM!

There. I feel better now.

Originally Posted by Bo

Seriously, if this country can vote a man like Bush into office twice......then I may just have to check out.

You mean like, jump out a window?

Sweetness!!

I think it takes a lot of guts to commit to something like that. And I applaud AND support you Mr. BetterBlues.

Make sure you make a big spectacle of it though. Do it where tv cameras are filming something, that way you'll be on every news broadcast from coast to coast.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Doc,

I largely agree with your last post but I do have a question: Who exactly is practicing free trade? I hear the term tossed around a lot, but I really don't see it in practice much.

Originally Posted by Finch

If you want action on healthcare

Terezacare?

retention of your First Amendment rights

Just think how nice it will be to have the right to call the President a moron again. Without even being shot or thrown in jail. Oh........those'll be the good ole days.....

and a reasonable end to the Iraq misadventure

Been spending a lot of time out back looking at the chickens again, Finch?

[tippy]

>>Please vote for John Kerry for President. Please vote for Democratic members of the House and Senate. If you want action on healthcare, retention of your First Amendment rights, and a reasonable end to the Iraq misadventure, this is what you have to do. I promise you, voting for Ralph Nader WILL NOT GET YOU THESE THINGS.<<

And "lefties" are really stupid on top of being traitors. More insults. If I can't convince the Dems how threads like this hurt their cause, I will just remain mum on the subject.

[bobetterblues]

Dr. Dave,

Nobody said they were voting for Kerry so settle down.

Now let me get a little riled up. Why haven't you been critical of the democratic party! The only time you pipe up in these discussions is to rattle off the same old tired bullshit "A vote for Nader, is a vote for Bush"

Let's talk about anti-trust for a while shall we? Or the fourth ammendment, or the continued cowtowing to corporate America, Health Care (corporate umbrella), The media (coporate umbrella), and ask yourself why you are not more critical of our goverment.

We're all going to vote for Kerry, but that doesn't mean we have to stop thinking about what's really going on, and what that vote for Kerry really means.

Tired of party politics,

Blues

[Dr Dave]

OK, one at a time:

Dolan, your politics-by-insult is proof that you have nothing to say on this subject. So piss off.

Darryl: You are absolutely correct. There is not a whole lot of actual free trade going on, certainly not in commodities like cotton, peanuts, sugar, cocoa--goods that third-world companies are ready, willing, and able to provide, if only rich countries will stop propping up their own industries.

Bobetter: I am MONDO critical of the Democratic Party. Their trade policy ideas are worse than Bush's. They continually wimp out on the National Payer solution for healthcare, which is the ONLY solution that is ever going to work. They are totally in the pocket of the unions. I'm not anti-union (well, I'm anti-teacher's unions, and the Teamsters are once again as crooked as the day is long, but that's my personal pecadillo) but no party should be in the pocket of any organization.

In fact, I'd vote Republican if they weren't such a bunch of smug know-it-all Christian assholes who think they can rip up the Bill of Rights because their money makes them right.

Originally Posted by Finch

Dolan, your politics-by-insult is proof that you have nothing to say on this subject.

Aw.............

Well, if it makes you feel any better, the fact that you recite tired, unproven, and generalized Democrat nonsense proves to me that you have nothing to say either.

And just what did I say in my previous post that you found insulting? I responded to the ridiculous with the ridiculous, whats wrong with that?

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Aw.............

Well, if it makes you feel any better, the fact that you recite tired, unproven, and generalized Democrat nonsense proves to me that you have nothing to say either.

And just what did I say in my previous post that you found insulting? I responded to the ridiculous with the ridiculous, whats wrong with that?

I'll stop at "Terezacare?" and you can fill in the blanks. You being so smart and all and me being a purveyor of generalized Democrat nonsense.

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

I'll stop at "Terezacare?" and you can fill in the blanks. You being so smart and all and me being a purveyor of generalized Democrat nonsense.

Aw geeeeez..

Terezacare was insulting? Why?

Jesus Finch, I'm used to you being cantankerous, but you're just downright touchy today.

[bobetterblues]

Fair enough Dr. Dave.

I'm just so tired of the political climate right now.

What do we have in Kerry to hang our hats on?

I mean if he was championing just a couple issues that were more geared towards cleaning things up, leading to real progress and change, I would be happy.

Give me one reason aside from the fact that he's not Bush, and aside from the fact that he's a democrat, that I should be happy to vote for him.

THe way I see it, is that we may get four years of Kerry, or even 8, but after that, there will be another Bush waiting in the wings, and nothing will have changed.

At least when the Republicans get in charge they bulldoze through with their agenda and make change, no matter how horrific it is.

I just don't want to be sitting around 30-40 years from now, witnessing the same power, corporate, partisan politics we have now. Its only getting worse, with the media outlets (especially TV), and voter apathy. For example, the FCC allowing more comglomeration is an abomination and nobody batted an eye at that, and its been happening in every industry since Clinton was in office. That's not competition, that's the crushing of competition, by way of using money and power to alienate anyone who doesn't have that. I think so people quickly see this as no big deal, because in the end, the money and power is still ours, but more and more we a re seeing our jobs go over seas, our wages cut, our health plans deteriorate, and our 401K's diminishing......while we work more and more, without any job security.

The average voter feels powerless to the coporate access and power now, and that will only get worse, unless someone stands up and makes change despite to effects it could have on their "career".

That's what leaders and public servants are supposed to do. What's best for the system, the country, despite what the money, power people in this country want. And as long as those two groups are bedfellows, we are in great danger of losing even more....

More and more, I find that the people who want change in the name of a better future, (in terms of anti-trust, trade, health care, and the environment to name a few important issues) don't have a voice in the current political system.

This is the climate that has spawned George Bush. There is blood on the hands of the liberals too, because they've allowed this politcal climate to get to this point, because without that George Bush couldn't have gotten elected. We don't see any liberals/Dems conceding that though do we? (All we get is guilt trips about voting for Nader)

I'm voting for Kerry, but I want all the people who are voting with me, to realize that there are reasons why are in the position we are in today.

Matter of fact, let me be a bit more precise here, Finch.

I respect what bo is saying. I respect that not only is he intelligent enough to see the real story from all angles, but that he's honest enough to admit to it.

Had you come out and said the same things, I would have respected that. But instead you come out and make these general pronouncements about healthcare, the First Admendment, and Iraq as though you know for a fact that Kerry is the solution to these "problems".

Healthcare? every politician in my lifetime has paid lip service to this issue during their campaign. So why is it still a problem? And how is Kerry going to magically fix it?

First Amendment? Yeah, give me a break. Unless of course your typing your posts from a liberla concentration camp.

Iraq? What is it about Kerry's policy that differes so much from Bush's? Not much.

Now, had you come out and said, "look, I don't know if this Kerry guy will be for shit, but we've at least got to see if he can bring some fresh ideas to the table because I don't think Bush can", THAT I would have respected.

It would have been not only honest, but intellectually honest.

Just like Bo.

But if you want to continue to make claims that you, in all honesty, have no clue as to whether they are sound or not, then I'm gonna be the first peckerhead conservative to call you on it.

[Al in NYC]

"Free" trade is a phantom. It's every bit as much an idealized creation of the economics texts as Marxism was. An ideology masquerading as somehow indisputable "fact." But something that has never in history actually existed.

Why? Because in any economic situation there are winners and losers, and the winners will always try to use whatever tools they have to protect their status, while the losers will try to gain access to those same tools to reverse their status. Right now the big huge enormous winners are multinational corporations who are using their access to governments at the highest levels to put in place a "free" trade regime that protects international capital flows while also protecting their ability to increase their profits by supressing their costs -- most notably the world cost for human labor. So this so-called free trade in fact really only frees one side of the economic equation, and does so through what amounts to international legal protection against the other side of the equation. They explain this all away with the "self-evident" rhetoric of free trade, but I have yet to understand what the hell should be so self-evident about it for the losers. It isn't free trade at all, it's protectionism for the largest and richest among us. Supra-national protection for capital organizations (corporations) that essentially disarms any possibility for any sort of counter-organization, or even regulation by democratic governments.

Now I am not a classical protectionist, so please don't tar me with the same brush as the politically expedient like Gephardt. In the end they are only really protecting the corporate losers in free trade like American automobile companies, and that sort of protectionism just gives us shoddier products at higher prices. I'm an internationalist and I see the probelm as one of distribution. I keep hearing how much the present "free" trade regime increases national incomes, but I don't hear a damn thing about the other side of that equation -- who the hell is getting that money? The steadily growing disparity in incomes between the very wealthy and everyone else, not only in this country but around the world, makes it pretty damn clear what the answer is.

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

They are totally in the pocket of the unions.

Hah, I wish! What unions? Have you noticed that union membership has declined severely across the country, while corporations have been allowed to put up and all-out fight against the possiblity of organization of workers in new industries, and tacit government backing in their fight against existing unions. The Dems may be getting money out of the unions' pockets, but the unions sure as hell aren't getting much back!

The godawful Teamsters have been complicit in this process, since they have been a Republican-supporting union for much of their recent history.

[Brian Olewnick]

[QUOTE=Al in NYC Because in any economic situation there are winners and losers.[/QUOTE]

You're a dentist and I'm a carpenter. I need a cavity filled and you need a cabinet repaired. We agree to barter one for one. Where is the loser?

Obviously, this sort of situation isn't what applies today, but when you say that any economic situation produces winners and losers, I don't think that's correct. It might be instructive to proceed from a situation where we agree that that isn't the case out into examples where there's argument as to who's actually benefiting.

But when I exchange $2 for a sausage and egg sandwich in the morning, neither myself nor the bodega owner are losing on the deal. I don't imagine when he's buying several gross of eggs from his distributor either party is losing. At some point up the ladder perhaps we would encounter a winner/loser situation that we'd both agree on (and could discuss how/if a change is proper), but to tarnish the basic exchange as somehow being inherently immoral (that's the inference I take from your above remark, perhaps too strong a one), is, imho, unfair.

Ollie, I agree with you 100%.

But in all fairness, it seems that you are simplifying what Al was getting at a little too much.

[bobetterblues]

[QUOTE=Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC Because in any economic situation there are winners and losers.[/QUOTE

You're a dentist and I'm a carpenter. I need a cavity filled and you need a cabinet repaired. We agree to barter one for one. Where is the loser?

Obviously, this sort of situation isn't what applies today, but when you say that any economic situation produces winners and losers, I don't think that's correct. It might be instructive to proceed from a situation where we agree that that isn't the case out into examples where there's argument as to who's actually benefiting.

But when I exchange $2 for a sausage and egg sandwich in the morning, neither myself nor the bodega owner are losing on the deal. I don't imagine when he's buying several gross of eggs from his distributor either party is losing. At some point up the ladder perhaps we would encounter a winner/loser situation that we'd both agree on (and could discuss how/if a change is proper), but to tarnish the basic exchange as somehow being inherently immoral (that's the inference I take from your above remark, perhaps too strong a one), is, imho, unfair.

First of all, the carpenter is probably the loser, because most likely he doesn't have a good health plan. If he did, the health care providers and the dentist are probably in cohoots so that the dentist can way overcharge for his time, and the health care provider won't cover anything but a teath cleaning and a general filling. The cost of the carpenter taking a day off work for getting the teeth work done, is probably a loss of a days work. So two hours of a dentists overcharged time, is way more than the day of a carpenter.

Most likely the carpenter, if he lives in LA, gets underbid by an illegal immigrant to do the work anyway.

The bodega owner, probably just makes enough profit to keep his business going, because there is probably a Starbucks and McDonald's right around the corner that offers just as good a sandwich, if not better for the same price, and has enourmous amount of money to advertise and crush competition.

The loser is the consumer and the small business owner.

I know what you're saying Brian, and by no means do I think what I just said refutes your original contention. I just wanted to make a point.

Free Trade and Marxism (like AL Said), and a lot of other economic models are good in theory and theory only, because they base the logic on "All other things remaining eqaul", but that is never the case is it?

[Brian Olewnick]

Oh certainly, I was drastically oversimplifying. I just like to establish some common ground before getting to areas of disagreement.