Some facts about Nader funding in 04 that bother me.

[madfloridian]

While I agree with a lot of the ideas Nader espouses, he really does not have a structure or organization to offer us. Trying to hurt the Democratic Party without offering anything solid in return is what I fear too many progressive groups are doing. It is going on at Kos today, someone wanting people to drop their Democracy Bonds...it goes on here all the time. It was alarming that he took money from right wing groups in 04, especially the two mentioned below.

Group run by Democrats says "right-wing Republicans" and "extremists" aid Nader to help Bush. Characterizations aside, they've got a point.

http://www.factcheck.org/article216.html

Citizens for a Sound Economy is a nonprofit, tax-exempt group co-chaired by Dick Armey, the former Republican Majority Leader in the House, and C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel to George H.W. Bush, the current President’s father. It describes itself as devoted to “free markets and limited government“ and claims thousands of local activists. It pushes to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent, cut federal spending, create private Social Security accounts, enact school vouchers and enact a “flat tax” in place of the current system of higher rates for higher incomes.

Another Oregon group, the Oregon Family Council, also said it made calls for Nader. Mike White, the group's director, told the Associated Press :

White: We aren't bashful about doing it. We are a conservative, pro-family organization, and Bush is our guy on virtually every issue.

That supports the ad's claim that Nader got help from "Republicans that are anti-choice." The Family Council describes itself as an "information service for Oregon Christians" and says its "Christian Voter's Guide" for 2002 helped thousands of Christians make "informed votes" that "produced more Pro-life/ Pro-family legislators than there have been in over 30 years!"

Conservatives for Nader, and proud of it. Here is a phone script used by this very conservative business group that does NOT have the best interest of the people in mind.

http://www.cse.org/newsroom/press_template.php?press_id=863

Washington, D.C. - Oregon CSE members are working to get Ralph Nader on the November ballot! While this sounds completely backwards-- Ralph Nader opposes nearly every issue CSE fights for-- but there's sound logic behind Oregon CSE's actions. CSE does not advocate the election or defeat of political candidates, but Oregon CSE members feel that having Nader on the ballot helps illuminate the strong similarities between the uber-liberal Nader and John Kerry. That's why they've been making calls to their friends to sign a petition to get Nader on the ballot by attending a townhall on June 26th, using a phone script that reads:

"Hi, my name is Russ Walker, director of Citizens for a Sound Economy here in Oregon, and I wanted to tell you about an opportunity we have to drive a wedge through the Liberal Left’s base of support.

In this year’s presidential race, Ralph Nader could peel away a lot of Kerry support in Oregon, but he has to be on the ballot first. He will make it if at least 1,000 people show up this Saturday at Benson High school at 4:00 pm and sign the petition to certify his candidacy.

Liberals are trying to unite in Oregon and keep Nader off the ballot to help their chances of electing John Kerry. We could divide this base of support by showing up at Grant High school on Saturday.

Poor Ralph Nader: He just wants to make the ballot here in Oregon. Let’s give him what he wants and just watch what happens in November!"

And from Common Dreams this article about how the Republicans got him on the ballot, being quite open of their reasons.

Published on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Nader's "Grassroots" Campaign...Courtesy of GOP
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0720-15.htm

Just a few gems from this article:

Nader campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese initially took a principled stand, telling Associated Press last week that the campaign would not accept the GOP's help: "We won't take any signatures from them." But within hours he flip-flopped, AP reported, saying the campaign might accept the Republican signaturesIn Oregon, another swing state where Nader could tip the election to Bush, he only needed to attract 1,000 registered voters to a nominating convention to get on the ballot. Four years ago, 10,000 activists rallied for Nader in Portland. But in April, he couldn't rally even 1,000 supporters.

Once again, the Right rode to the rescue. When Nader made a second attempt at a convention on June 26, Oregon's Republicans enlisted the anti-choice, anti-gay Oregon Family Council and the corporatist Citizens for a Sound Economy to recruit rightwingers to attend and sign Nader's petition. The CSE's phone script asking Republicans to put Nader on the ballot explained the need to "pull some very crucial votes from John Kerry." Nader's Oregon coordinator said he saw nothing wrong with rightwing help: "It's a free country. People do things in their own interest."

Nader campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese initially took a principled stand, telling Associated Press last week that the campaign would not accept the GOP's help: "We won't take any signatures from them." But within hours he flip-flopped, AP reported, saying the campaign might accept the Republican signatures if state officials did not certify Nader as the nominee of the Reform Party in Michigan, which is split into two factions. Yesterday, team Nader made it official: They'll accept the "independent" ballot line provided by the Republican signatures in case they fail to get the Reform Party nomination: "We have to get on the ballot somehow," said Zeese.

Nader has complained -- correctly in at least one state -- of covert Democratic efforts to keep him off ballots. But in Michigan, he has no such excuse. In that key battleground state, after Nader volunteers had collected only 5,000 of the 30,000 signatures necessary to get on the ballot, Michigan's Republican Party came to the rescue with 43,000 Nader signatures.

And this article is by Jeff Cohen of FAIR and the Kucinich campaign, and he deplored these tactics. Here is one more thing he had to say.

"Camejo flip-flopped, telling the same reporter: "It is conceivable that pro-Bush, pro-Republicans believe we have a right to be on the ballot. We will not establish lie detector tests for people who give us money."

Camejo's new line was in keeping with Nader's laissez-faire attitude on accepting GOP cash: "Republicans are human beings too," he argued in a recent radio debate."

Nader's campaign manager was aware that the Republicans were using them to hurt the Democratic Party. Yet they went along with this. So did Camejo. These two groups bother me the most, but there were others.

[benburch]

1. "Nader the Traitor"

That is how he will go down in the history of our country, assuming we ever get Bush out of office.

[madfloridian]

2. CSE held protests often against Dean...this picture is from Michigan.

[Nomen Tuum]

3. Camejo openly backed Arnold in the California recall

He even boasted that he would do anything to remove Davis and install Arnold.

THis is the ass that Nader picked to be his running mate.

[madfloridian]

4. I did not realize that.

Maybe his group liked Arnold's ideals and standards better. Boy, does that puzzle me.

[mike_c]

6. link please?-- put up or quit spreading inuendo...

Camejo ran AGAINST Arnold in the recall, so while I have no doubt that he wanted to unseat Gray Davis, as did LOTS of Californians, including lots of dems, I doubt very seriously that he wanted a republican candidate to win. He ran as a green, for pity's sake-- it's hard to be more antithetical to repub politics than the greens are. Some I'm calling you out on that assertion-- provide a link, or stop spreading that crap.

[1932]

16. Camejo RAN for governor. He endorsed himself.

[mike_c]

5. this has nothing to do with republican support for Nader...

...and everything to do with republican opposition to the democratic party. They didn't give Nader funds or try to get him on state ballots to give him a fair shot at election-- that would actually be laudable. They did it to divide the liberal vote. They did as a backhanded attack against democrats. As such, the only party engaging in questionable tactics were the republicans. Nader was certainly not to blame for exercising his right to run for office and for trying to get onto state ballots so he could do so. This is still America, after all, and exercising one's rights to participate in the political process used to be regarded as an example of good citizenship. Blaming Nader because the republicans acted underhandedly is disengenuous at best.

BTW, would you be so outraged if republicans gave support to dem candidates? I'm sure it happens every election, i.e. moderate republicans, or single issue republican voters dissatisfied with their own candidates. And were you as outraged about democratic support for Perot's candidacy in 1992?

[madfloridian]

7. Zeese knew what they were doing. Hey don't get mad at me.

The Nader campaign chairman knew why the GOP groups were funding them. I am just pointing it out.

I am very willing to work and band together with progressive groups who want to change the party from within.

I am not at all willing to work with people who will do anything to hurt it.

[mike_c]

9. so I ask you again, should dems reject support from members...

...of other parties just because that support undermines republicans-- their opposition-- or are you proposing one set of standards for dems and another for everyone else? Why shouldn't Nader have taken contributions from whomever offered them legally? Let's see, Indian tribes that gave to both dems and republicans while clients of Jack Abramoff were also playing both sides, yet we call that another matter entirely. More to the point, the dems didn't have any reluctance about taking the tribes' money-- nor should they, and nor should Nader have been reluctant to accept support from republicans. Likewise, dems supported Ross Perot's campaign-- should Perot have refused the support, and floundered along without it?

on edit-- BTW, I have never voted for Nader, but I find these efforts to demonize him for exercising his rights as an American really tiresome. That's the sort of thing I expect from freepers and their like.

[madfloridian]

10. If I have to explain that to you, I doubt you would see my point.

When Perot ran, we were not in the danger we are in as a country now.

[mike_c]

11. sez who?

Ross Perot certainly didn't agree. And the republican candidate was none other GHW Bush. One might just as easily argue that a second term for poppy would have altered history quite a bit, and kept us out of this mess. In any event, it's a useless debate.

Either the Constitution is worth something, or it's not. Who are you to decide when times are so dire that it's too dangerous for someone to exercise their right to seek office? I'm sure the neocons would have agreed with you in 1992, too.

So go on, explain it to me. Why was it not acceptable for Nader to accept republican support, but it's OK for dems to accept support from disaffected republicans, or for dems to have supported the Perot candidacy? It seems to me that the only qualitative difference is that dems benefited in the one case and not the other.

[madfloridian]

12. I have presented data, I am not trying to be ugly.

It goes to what Nader has traditionally stood for. His own group expressed concern about CSE, and then took campaign help from them.

[mike_c]

14. then why single out Nader? I'm certain that dem candidates have taken...

...far more money from groups that they've "expressed concern" about than Nader did, and that they do it as a matter of course. Again, the improper motives you've cited were the republicans', not Nader's, and they're only improper in so far as you're willing to paint dems during the 1992 campaign with the same brush. This just looks like more gratuitous Nader bashing to me. So two (or maybe even a few more) of his many donors were not really supporters of his agenda-- that's not his fault or his concern unless those donors were engaging in crimes. I fail to see what purpose OTHER than Nader bashing this discussion could possibly serve. It's well known that a few republican organizations sought to do the same thing the dems did in 1992 with Perot, so your data isn't bringing anything new to light. It's politics as usual-- and well within both Perot's and Nader's rights as citizens.

[madfloridian]

15. Because it is still going on....same goals, same ambitions...

It may not be Nader, it may be another. It may just be progressives who don't like the party structure, and rather than working to change it will work to harm it.

I see a sea change going on in our party right now. I see more speaking out, and more taking stands as they should.

I am all for calling out to them to stand up...I have been doing that myself. I am not for calling them out to take stands, then saying..no that is not enough.

I mentioned Nader because it was a topic today. It could be anyone. I won't be silent while some try to tear down what we have without offering a structure and organization in return.

[1932]

17. He didn't have any impact on 2004 outcome, right? People

knew what was at stake and voted for Kerry. Republicans wasted their time and money supporting Nader.

[WildEyedLiberal]

20. Very true

I think MF is highlighting the hypocrisy of Nader supporters more than anything - and it is pretty sickening to watch them defend their votes for Nader in 2000 and pretend that he has any shred of credibility or integrity left.

Nader is a Judas to the progressive movement in America who took blood money from the Swift Boat liars, among others.

[madfloridian]

8. Nader's group GAP cautioned against this group in 2000.

Then in 2004 Nader took campaign assistance from them. Nader is a very bright man. He knew what he was doing.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy

And an interesting quote:

"CSE has been criticised by the Nader-founded group, the Government Accountability Project (GAP), as lacking independence. In 2000 GAP spokesperson Gary Ruskin told the Washington Post, "It's part of a rent-a-mouthpiece phenomenon. ... There are mercenary groups that function as surrogates when industry feels it's not advantageous for it to speak directly." <2> (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A46598-2000Jan28)"

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. Excellent post

If I had $1 for every time a Naderite said one of these comments to stop discussions about Naderites....

1) Why don't you just move on and stop dwelling on the past?;
2) They would've won whether Nader ran or not; and,
3) There's no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans,

.....I'd be so damned rich!

[elshiva]

24. I'd be so rich too!

[madfloridian]

18. Amazing amazing, simply amazing. Dems must be pure, but not Nader.

The Democratic Party is supposed to be pure in ideals and motives with no deviation from what many on the left want.

The amazing thing is that the progressive on the left can be anything they want to be, stand for anything they want to stand for, and offer no structure for us to run to for shelter.

Those who defend Nader here think the Democrats should take strong stands....but they do not require the same of him.

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. Dead on

I know we've had our differences in the past, but I say completely without snark here that I agree 100% with you, and your OP was very enlightening (if sickening). Nader also took money from the Swift Boat liars - he might as well have just signed a pact with Satan instead. He took their blood money, and some holier-than-thou leftists have the gall to call him "pure" and insinuate that he is morally superior in his fundraising to the Democratic party? Naderites are the epitome of pathetic.

BTW, it shouldn't surprise you that Naderites have jaw-dropping double standards for what's acceptable behavior for Dems and what's acceptable for Nader. Without them, Al Gore would be our president, but you'll never hear them admit that they handed this country to George Bush on a silver platter.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. Amen to that nt

[Crazy Guggenheim]

21. Camejo the Presidential Candidate ...........

:popcorn:

[madfloridian]

22. Salon: On the phone with Nader. Very alarming article. About purity.

If you want such piety and purity and honesty from our Democrats demand it from everyone. Demand that they set high standards as well. Demand that people quote other people absolutely correctly. Don't allow them to misquote and divide.

This post is not so much about Nader, it is about being honest. It is about the fact that people like me here are absolutely made fun of not only here but progressive forums all around. We are made fun of for being Democrats by people who are not Democrats on the whole.

I don't like being made fun of for caring about my country, and wanting to do what is best for it. Since the other day when I said to be a "good German" (implying that I let Bush take over the country like Hitler did Germany)....I have been deeply angry. I work hard for the Democrats.

It must absolutely break the hearts of the Democrats or their staff when they read DU and other forums with Democratic in the name. None of them are perfect, but I am working to change the way things work from within.

This is such an absolutely painful interview with Nader by Salon, that I won't post any of it but the link. If you demand all this perfection of good Democrats, then first be sure you are one and then be sure you are perfect as well.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/14/naderphonecall/

If you don't have a membership at Salon, I will PM the article to you if you want it.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

23. Ben Stein gave to Ralphie in 2004. $3750 in all .........

http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Ben_Stein.php

[madfloridian]

25. Remember the show about Ben Stein's money?

He was so snide, and he thinks he's cute.

Check your inbox.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

26. Yeah. I actually liked the show. I noticed that the questions in the

final round were related to his field(s). Hmmmm.

[madfloridian]

27. I enjoyed trying to answer the questions.

But I can't stand him.