GOP aids Nader, Dem says

[Freddie Stubbs]

Accused official denies paying for signature drive

Jon Kamman
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 8, 2004 12:00 AM


The chairman of the state Democratic Party called Monday for an investigation into whether a Republican consultant is a major source of funding for a petition drive to put Ralph Nader on Arizona's presidential election ballot.

The consultant, Nathan Sproul, dismissed the claim as a "wild accusation that has no bearing in fact."

"I'm not being paid by anybody to do petitions (for Nader), and I've not paid anybody to do petitions," said Sproul, who served for three years as executive director of the state GOP before going into political consulting and management in 2002.

Democrats consider Nader a potential spoiler in Sen. John Kerry's bid to win the White House.

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

[billbuckhead]

1. How many RepuKKKe operatives have to be found before

Nadir admits he's a tool for the facists?

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. If he couldn't admit that there was no difference between Bush and Gore

why would he tell the truth on this? :shrug:

[tinanator]

5. I thought the notion was between Reps and Dems?

Which is patently absurd, of course. All you have to do is compare their positions on IWR, Selection 2000, Patriot Act, 9-11-01, Afghanistan, Gore as a Presidential candidate, and coming soon the draft

[CWebster]

2. Words of wisdom:

Ronald Reagan was a master politician who understood how to package rightwing ideas in appealing enough forms to get himself elected and, sometimes, to implement his programs. Even when Americans did not like the ideas Reagan was peddling -- as in 1984, when polls showed Democrat Walter Mondale's ideas were significantly more popular -- they liked Reagan. Throughout his career, Reagan benefitted from the penchant of Americans to embrace politicians who seem to be at ease with their ideology. This sense that true believers are genuine creates confidence in citizens, lending itself to lines like, "Even if you disagree with him, you know where he stands." And such lines translate on election day into votes that frequently cross ideological and partisan lines.

Reagan connected as a conservative by displaying an optimism about his ideology and its potential that most right-leaning politicians before him had lacked. And that optimism transformed the conservative movement from a petty circle of grumbling cynics who believed that every glass was half empty -- and probably poisoned -- into energetic and, dare it be said, happy warriors on behalf of tax cuts, ever-more-expensive weapons systems, corporate welfare, privatization, deregulation and the blurring of lines between church and state.

In the years after Republican rightwinger Barry Goldwater's landslide loss of the 1964 presidential election, many conservatives had doubts about whether they would ever be able to peddle their programs successfully. But Reagan did not doubt. He believed. And his faith was infectious. It helped him beat a liberal Democratic governor of California in 1966 and a moderate Democratic president in 1980. And it permitted a new generation of conservatives to feel they were part of a movement with not just principles but with a future.

As that movement grasped its future, during Reagan's presidency and in its aftermath, liberals -- particularly those working within the constraints of the Democratic party -- began to be the ones who entertained doubts. Many Democrats gave up altogether on the liberal values that had carried that party to its greatest successes, and moved to the right. It was a tragic error, for which the Democratic party continues to pay.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0607-04.htm

If the Democrats carried their own torch then they wouldn't have to worry about anyone else using their issues to campaign against them.

What is Kerry other than ABB? He shrinks from his identity as if it were something to be ashamed of. Who wants to support that?

[tom_paine]

6. How much of that perception is the result of the Bushevik Fantasy Bubble

i.e. Corproate TV Pravda and the Party-Loyal Imperial Bushevik Sub-Media that dictates (most of the time, though occasionally the Torture Scandal cannot be stopped from being covered due to it's sexual nature) what gets covered and for how long

Every time I hear Kerry speak, he is standing tall and saying the right thing. Is he as passionate as Dean? No. But that erases some negatives, too.

All I am saying is that is it possible that, even knowing what we know, our perceptions can also be managed by Bushevik Pyschoengineeers?

Is is possible that Kerry is saying the right things, but that it seems like he's a wuss because it doesn't get coverage?

Just asking. We are NOT immune from Bushevik Psychomanipulations, too. We have strong defenses, but they have 100 years of Psychological/PR/Marketing science behind them.

[CWebster]

8. The point is, Tom Paine

That it didn't stop Reagan:

Rather, the lesson to be learned from Reagan is a stylistic one. He loved preaching his conservative doctrines. And he loved battling with liberals at the ballot box, at the debate podium and in the Capitol. He was a conservative first, a Republican second. He showed no respect for party decorum, challenging a sitting Republican president -- Gerald Ford -- who he felt was too moderate. And he was willing to lose on principle, whether in that 1976 nomination fight with Ford or, during his presidential terms, in fights with Congress over tax policy, foreign affairs or nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just imagine if Bill Clinton had been as committed to advancing an activist liberal ideology as Reagan was to his conservative agenda. America might have a national health care plan today. Labor law reform could have been a reality, rather than an empty promise. The United States would certainly have a more progressive judiciary. And here's another notion: If Clinton or Al Gore had put as much energy and enthusiasm into educating Americans about and promoting a liberal agenda as Reagan did for his conservative ideals, the United States would today have a different Congress and president.

This willingness to fight so fearlessly and forcefully for his political faith is what made the 40th president remarkable. It is what inspired conservatives. And it is the one thing that liberals would do well to learn from Ronald Reagan.

[tom_paine]

10. Except for one thing. The Bushevik Fantasy Bubble HELPED Raygun

It produced those Phony 90% Approval Polls for Ollie North. It shielded him in ways we cannot understand (or perhaps we can, as per "On Bended Knee").

The Bushevik Fantasy Bubble, the Pravda if you will, bullies and intimidates and draws the teeth from any Democrat who speak passionately about ANYTHING.

So there's your difference right there. Had the Party-Loyal Bushevik Sub-Media, even back then in it's more embryonic "Operation MockingBird" form, been working AGAINST Raygun, he would not have been "teflon".

Its the media. The Busheviks long ago recognized that, as the Nazis and Commies before them. If you can turn the media into your own personal Lie Laundry and rip their ethics from them (by forcing sea changes or just Gulagging them), then you have a winner as long as people still trust your Pravda and refuse to believe it is a Worthless Lie Laundry.

Again, to conclude: The Bushevik Fantasy Bubble worked FOR Raygun, works FOR the Imperial Family. It works AGAINST Kerry, now almost Orwellian in level, as compared to the mildness that came before.

"It was Comrade Kerry who destroyed the windmill! And Comrade Kerry showed cowardice at the Battle of the Cow Pasture!"
--what Orwell would write in "Animal Farm" if he was alive to see the Busheviks bring his vision to life

[CWebster]

14. Not until that side put in the hard work to make it that way.

Think about it--Reagan did away with the fairness doctrine and Clinton signed the telecommunications act which helped to further consolidate the media and the meessage. That helps the corporate pandering DLC, BUT BUT BUT it is at the expense of Democrats formulating and selling their own winning platform. They are now compromised by global corps and it is going to take concerted effort to stake out a forceful claim to emerge with any influence.

[tom_paine]

15. Agreed.

:evilfrown:

Hijacking and Sovietizing the media is something I'd rather not work towards, though.

I'd rather work towards exposing and stopping the Sovietization of Amerikan Media.

[progressivebydesign]

9. I often wonder about that with Kerry..

.. but I do wonder also, if we are being misled on Kerry, as we were on Gore. How many of us see Kerry daily? Hear all his speeches? See all of his press materials? Unless you work for him, you won't see that. My exposure to Kerry is at the mercy of the media. Because I don't watch broadcast t.v. (rots the brain), then I'm limited to what I read on the internet, or the pitches for money he sends me weekly.

I do agree on some points.. Personality. Howard Dean has it. Clinton has it. It's that intangible.. You may not agree with them, but you like them as a person.. or you sense that they are sincere. Kerry hasn't been able to project any personality.. whether it's the fault of his campaign, his personality, or the media.. I don't know. I implore the Kerry campaign to choose a VP with some excitement and appeal... Not a stuffed shirt. The reason Clinton won was the incredible excitement he and Gore created together.. on their bus trips, everywhere. Though other candidates try to have bus trips, rock music, etc... there is something missing. I truly hope that the Kerry campaign takes that to heart, and really, really chooses an exciting, dynamic VP.

[AndyTiedye]

11. We Don't Get to Do That

After over 20 years of "Liberal" being made a dirty word,
we can't run on ideology without getting destroyed at the polls.

Republicans can run on ideology, in part because they own the news,
so they have a lot more control over their message. The media has
helped them sell fascism as being patriotic.

Democrats have to put up with being defined by unfriendly media.

There is more.

The Republicans have a base that believes everything the Repubs say
and will vote for them no matter what.

The Democrats don't really have a base.

Most Democrats would desert the party at the drop of a hat.
The Republicans can easily divide us with issues like gay marriage.
If we stand up for our principles, it could cost us millions of votes
and the election. If our candidates sell out or equivocate, they are
accused of flip-flopping and lose votes that way, but not as many as
we would lose by standing firm.

Democratic office-holders have become wishy-washy because only
wishy-washy Democrats survive in office.

Wishy-washy Democrats are better than reich-wing fasist Repubs.

[tom_paine]

16. Unfortunately, that is quite accurate, Andy

Now what can we do, if anything, to turn it around?

[checks-n-balances]

3. The title should be expanded to "GOP helps Nader & Nader helps GOP"

but anyway, I'm glad someone is exposing both sides of this story. Both need to be explored inside and out, too bad our press is too busy as RW shills or apologizing now for having been. And of course this week they're outdoing one another with their version of "Ronathon."

Thanks for the post & link.

[John_H]

7. Nader. Liar: Indistinguishable words. n/t

[Democat]

12. Nader works for Bush again this election?

Drop out, Ralph!

[Guaranteed]

13. Then cover your left flank, Democrats. nt

[bain_sidhe]

17. It's comments like this

and CWebster's that makes me just want to give up. If Naderites can't see that giving the bush crowd four more years means the death of everything they purport to hold dear, at least in our lifetimes, maybe the left is just too stupid to live.

There is truth to the cliche that people get the government they deserve.

**edit: fixed the name I misremembered**

[emulatorloo]

18. I thought Dems and Repugs were "the same" until Ronald Reagan's

2nd Term proved to me I was a nitwit.