The Real Ralph Presents....
__________________________________________________________________
QUOTATIONS
FROM RALPH NADER AND OTHERS
about Nader's desire to punish the
Democrats
and elect George W. Bush
_________________________________________________________________
The
following presents Nader's statements about the Democrats, and excerpts from
writings about him, in chronological order for the last four years.
The quotations
from Nader show that he has consistently viewed the Democrats with contempt,
looked forward to taking votes from them--above all in swing states, and
welcomed their defeat, even if it meant electing Bush and Cheney. The
news excerpts follow political responses to Nader, the election, and the Bush
presidency. The commentaries, especially by Jonathan Chait and Ronnie Dugger in
2002, reveal what Nader has disguised: that he very much sought to defeat Al
Gore. And the reports from 2004 bring new revelations and take the story up to
the present, the summer of 2004, and Nader's growing collaboration with
right-wing Republicans in his effort to punish the Democrats by electing
Bush-Cheney, again.
Harry G. Levine
/ Department of Sociology/ Queens College/ City University of New York/
hglevine@Qc.edu / July 2004 / More information is available at: The
Real Ralph
*2000*
--Ralph Nader interview,
The Progressive, April 2000
QUESTION: I'd like you to
address the fear that the Greens will act as spoilers and help elect a worse
alternative.
NADER: These two parties have generated such a spoiled system, it's
impossible to spoil them in any third party manner. You can only purge them, displace
them, or at the least discipline them....
http://www.progressive.org/intv0400.htm
-----------------------
--John Judis, "Ralph
Nader Betrays Himself," June 5, 2000
In Detroit, Nader says his
goal "is to build a new progressive political party that says to the
Democratic Party, `If you don't shape up, you're going to ship out.'"
Asked in Chapel Hill whether he can actually win, he all but admits that's not
his real goal. "Do you really want a Pat Buchanan answer--about what I
will do when I am president?" Nader says, laughing. "The truth is you
can't lose. You bring thousands of people into the progressive political
community. That's a win. If you get five percent, you get federal funds the next
time. You cost the Democrats a few states. They'll never be the same
again."
He may be right. When
Nader ran for president as the Green Party candidate in 1996, he did not even
campaign. He spent less than $5,000 and got on the ballot in only a handful of
states. Yet he still managed to win enough votes in one state (Colorado) to
tilt it from Bill Clinton to Bob Dole. This year, Nader is running in earnest.
He plans to get on the ballot in at least 45 states. He hopes to raise $5
million, and he just might.....
To cost Gore the election,
Nader needs three to five percent of the vote in a few closely contested
states: Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania. And that's a real possibility....
In short, 2000 may be the
year Ralph Nader has been waiting for his whole career. But, for someone like
myself who has for years admired Nader as a champion of workers and consumers,
this campaign does not represent the culmination of his life's work. It
represents its betrayal. For the last four decades, the gangly Nader has loomed
large in American politics precisely because, unlike so many other radicals, he
has not merely ranted about the system. He's actually tried to fix it. He
founded the modern consumer movement; he played a critical role in getting
government to pay attention to automobile safety, environmental pollution, and
workers' health and protection. Most recently, he helped inspire the government
antitrust suit against Microsoft.
As a candidate this year,
by contrast, Nader seems determined, even eager, to play a destructive role.
His campaign bears the mark of the Manichaean left. He doesn't merely criticize
corporate power; he turns it into a bogeyman and elevates the struggle with
corporations into an apocalyptic conflict between good and evil. He primarily
attacks not conservatives but Democrats, who share many of his objectives. And
he promotes the classic sectarian canard: that by undermining the politician
immediately to his right, namely Al Gore, he can bring about the victory of a
purer left.
http://www.soc.qc.edu/Staff/levine/nader/RALPH-NADER-BETRAYS-HIMSELF.htm
-----------------------
-Interview, Meet the
Press, June 25, 2000
MR. RUSSERT: Bottom line, it
wouldn't bother you if your presence in this presidential race elected George
W. Bush?
MR. NADER: Not at all. I mean, you're dealing with Democratic do-littles and
Republican do-nothings.... You think anyone should lose any sleep about
these two corrupt parties being stripped from their power over our
government? http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/nadar.cfm
-----------------------
-- Interview, Tikuun, July 2000
TIKKUN: So why not run in the Democratic primaries -- wouldn't that have
even more impact on public discourse?
NADER: No, this election goes all the way to November; Democrats have to be
even more concerned about us because we take votes that they may consider
necessary for their own electoral victory. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1548/is_4_15/ai_63974484
-----------------------
--Outside Magazine, August 2000
If California tips Green enough, Bush could win the state and the whole
damn election. Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn't be so
bad. When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for
either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation:
"Bush." Not that he actually thinks the man he calls "Bush
Inc." deserves to be elected: "He'll do whatever industry wants
done." The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth
into Al Gore, ... [and] concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a
ward heeler: "If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have
Bush win."
http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/200008/200008camp_nader1.html
-----------------------
--Interview, Rolling Stone, September 14, 2000
ROLLING STONE: What about your critics who say that a vote for Nader
will help elect George W. Bush....
NADER: ....The only language a politician understands is to deny him your vote
and put it in another visible column, in this case the Green Party column....
ROLLING STONE: In 1996, you told the New York Times, "If I really
wanted to beat Clinton, I would get out, raise $3 or $4 million, and maybe
provide the margin for his defeat. That's not the purpose of this
candidacy." Since you're planning to raise $5 million and run hard this
year, does that mean you would not have a problem providing the margin of
defeat for Gore?
NADER: I would not -- not at all.... With the possible slight exception of the
Environmental Protection Agency, there is no difference whatsoever between the
two parties. In some areas, the Democrats are worse....
Let me tell you something: I'd rather have a provocateur than an anesthetizer
in the White House. Remember what James Watt [Reagan's Secretary of the
Interior] did for the environmental movement? He galvanized it. Gore and his
buddy Clinton are anesthetizers.... They're both liars.
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg49697.html
-----------------------
--San Francisco Chronicle, October 23, 2000
Nader has amassed enough support in five critical states ... to effect
races where the Bush-Gore match up is a statistical dead heat, pollsters
note....
Nader outright rejected the pleas of a dozen former followers calling
themselves "Nader's Raiders for Gore'' who released a letter Friday
calling on him to reconsider his candidacy now that the election has become the
closest since 1960.... "It is now clear that you might well give the White
House to Bush,'' wrote Nader's former colleagues.... "As a result, you
would set back significantly the social progress to which you have devoted your
entire, astonishing career....''
In the interview, Nader said his focus is not on the other two candidates but
on the step-by-step process of creating a third party. "We're building a
party,'' he said. "You don't build it in a day"....
Nader also denied
accusations by the "Nader's Raiders'' that he assured them he would never
campaign in states where he would damage a chance for a Gore win. "I
never said that, ''Nader said. "Why would anybody ever run for president
if they were worried about taking votes away from all the other candidates?
That's what you do in a presidential run.''
Field Poll director Mark
DiCamillo said yesterday that Nader's recent boosts are due to "a decline
for Gore in the last two weeks.''
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/10/23/MN55280.DTL
-----------------------
--Ralph Nader quoted by Thomas Edsall, Washington Post, October 23, 2000.
"George W. Bush we can dismiss with a summary comment: nothing more
than a corporation disguised as a human being," Nader said last week in
California. But in the case of Gore, "there's no end to his betrayal. . .
. The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with
which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock." http://www.garone.com/writing/nader.html
-----------------------
--Matt Welch, Working for Change, October 24, 2000
"The difference in this race right now is Ralph Nader,"
pollster John Zogby told Reuters on Sunday. "If Gore moves to the left
with a populist message, he risks losing ground in the vital center. If he
moves to the center he will watch Nader's support increase."
Gore, who has less campaign cash than Bush, has been forced to spend it
fighting Nader this week in 11 states carried by Clinton in 1992 and '96,
instead of focusing on Florida and Michigan. Bush, on the other hand, is not
burdened by a significant challenge on his right flank, since late-starting
Reform Party nominee Pat Buchanan is stuck at 1 percent nationally....
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemId=8712
-----------------------
--The Washington Times, October 26, 2000.
Ralph Nader said yesterday he is under increasing pressure from
Democrats and labor leaders who fear his presidential bid could deny the White
House to Vice President Al Gore. "More and more prominent people,"
including a high-ranking labor leader, have contacted the Green Party
presidential candidate to urge him to throw his support behind the Democratic
nominee, Mr. Nader said yesterday.
But the famed activist ... yesterday renewed his attacks on the vice president,
issuing a scathing criticism of Mr. Gore's environmental record. He also said
he doesn't care whether he plays the spoiler.... Mr. Nader said. "Most
people who run for president run to take as many votes as possible from all the
other candidates." http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:66375821&num=23&ctrlInfo=Round4%3AProd%3ASR%3AResult&ao=
----------------------
--Appeal from
"Concerned Scholars, Writers And Activists," November 2, 2000
We, the undersigned, are appalled
at the continuing national campaign by Ralph Nader and the Green Party....
Despite Mr. Nader's past great achievements, and despite the good faith of his
rank-and-file supporters, his has become a wrecking-ball campaign -- one that
betrays the very liberal and progressive values it claims to uphold.... Instead
of a liberal or progressive force, his campaign now seriously threatens to
elect the deceptive George W. Bush to the presidency.... Mr. Nader, who
is also supporting divisive Green congressional candidates in some tight races,
plainly does not care about this -- or worse, seeks it... We implore all
liberal and progressive voters to reject the Nader campaign on Nov. 7 and to
vote for the Democratic ticket.
[Signers include: Todd
Gitlin (NYU), Mary Gordon (novelist), Hendrik Hertzberg (The New Yorker), Wendy
Lesser (Threepenny Review), Toni Morrison (Nobel laureate, novelist and
critic), Gloria Steinem, Jim Weinstein, (In These Times), Sean Wilentz
(Princeton)] http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/deep-ecology/2000/msg00557.html
----------------------
--Matt Welch, News for Change, November 6, 2000
Meanwhile, the Green Party
candidate is finding surprising allies among conservatives, who are running
pro-Nader television ads in some states, and filling the Beltway airwaves with
rare praise for a far-left crusader.... [For example] On D.C.'s Sunday chat
roundtables ... conservative bedrocks such as William Bennett gave high praise to
the Green Party candidate.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemId=9128
----------------------
NOVEMBER 7, 2000, ELECTION DAY RESULTS
(COMPILED FROM THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION'S TABLES)
BUSH WINS NEW HAMPSHIRE
BY 7,000 VOTES AS NADER GETS 22,000.
NADER GETS 97,0000
VOTES IN FLORIDA.
BUSH WINS FLORIDA BY 537 VOTES TO
BECOME PRESIDENT.
GORE WINS IOWA BY 4,000 VOTES -- NADER GETS 29,000 AND BUCHANAN GETS 5,700.
GORE WINS WISCONSIN BY 6,000 VOTES -- NADER GETS 94,000 AND BUCHANAN GETS
11,000.
GORE WINS OREGON BY 6,700 -- NADER GETS 77,000 AND BUCHANAN GETS 7,000.
GORE WINS MICHIGAN BY 16,000 -- NADER GETS 84,000.
GORE NARROWLY WINS NEW MEXICO BY 366 VOTES -- NADER GETS 21,000.
[SOURCE
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
-----------------------
--Associated Press,
December 3, 2000
They call him "traitor,'' "egomaniac'' and "fool.''....
Many of those who fought with Nader on the frontlines for the environment,
consumer rights and other liberal causes now say he betrayed them by not ending
his presidential run in time to save Al Gore's candidacy.... The iconoclast's
idol is undergoing the kind of beating he once trademarked, but Nader could
care less. "They were all anesthetized by Clinton, the snake charmer,''
said the man who described Gore and Bush as "Tweedledum and
Tweedledee.''
.... Some say Nader strayed from his original aim of establishing the
Green Party as a national force, and let his personal dislike for Gore color
his judgment.... The Greens fell well short of getting the 5 percent
needed to qualify for federal matching funds, and they elected just 20 people
to local office, including a sewage commissioner. http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/123100/nad_betrayed.shtml
________________________________________
*2001*
-- Danny Goldberg, Tikuun, Jan/Feb 2001
There is no need for Nader supporters, of which I was one, to avoid the
fact that Ralph acted badly in the last several weeks of the campaign. He
shouldn't have campaigned in swing states, especially since he had told so many
supporters that he wouldn't....
Moreover, Nader had promised to criticize Bush and Gore equally, but by
the campaign's end he was making personal and wildly disproportionate attacks
on Gore, and furthering the intellectually dishonest argument that Gore and
Bush were indistinguishable.....
Even from a purely tactical point of view, Nader's pre-election behavior must
be judged a failure. He came nowhere close to the 5 percent that would have
created Green Party matching funds in 2004. Had he done no swing state
campaigning and avoided personal denunciations of Gore, Nader still would have
garnered far more votes than Pat Buchanan, and would have been a far more
effective messenger ... than he now is. http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0101/article/010112a.html
-----------------------
-- Marianne Means, syndicated columnist, February 4, 2001
His [Nader's] candidacy was based on the self-serving argument that it
would make no difference whether Gore or George W. Bush were elected. This was
insane. Nobody, for instance, can imagine Gore picking as the nation's chief
law enforcement officer a man of Ashcroft's anti-civil rights, antitrust,
anti-abortion and anti-gay record. Or picking Bush's first choice to head the
Labor Department, Linda Chavez, who opposes the minimum wage and affirmative
action....
Nader is desperately trying to rewrite history to clean up his own role,
claiming he did not intend to defeat Gore. The claim ignores the crucial fact
that in the three days before the election he concentrated his campaign on
Florida, where he knew Gore needed every single liberal vote he could scrape
up. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/means4.shtml
-----------------------
-- Interview, the New York Times, February 18, 2001
NY TIMES: So you really believe that the two parties are the same?
NADER: Yes, on most issues. On the most basic issues of cordoning power
from people as voters, consumers and taxpayers, they've very similar....
NY TIMES: Any regrets?
NADER: Yeah, I didn't get more votes. The Democrats' scare tactics in
the last month took millions of votes that were leaning my way. The Washington
Post said that there were five million votes that were leaning my way that
got cold feet. http://www.njpcgreens.org/naderinterview.html
-----------------------
Dick Polman, veteran journalist, Philadelphia Inquirer, March 4, 2001
Ralph Nader's metamorphosis from icon to pariah has been swift and
merciless, but he insists that he could not care less. And he even has a plan
that could cost the Democrats some congressional seats in 2002.... In a long conversation at his office the
other day, he said: "I'm just amazed that people think I should be
concerned about this stuff.... Why should I worry?"
Nor are there any
prospects for a cease-fire, because now Nader is mapping new mischief with the
potential to gladden the hearts of Republicans everywhere.... He is not coy
about his motives. Just as he ran for president to punish Gore and the
Democrats for allegedly betraying their progressive traditions and currying
favor with global corporate power, now he wants to knock off congressional
Democrats who have committed the same sins. As he put it, "The Democrats
are going to have to lose more elections. They didn't get the message last
time." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0304-02.htm
-----------------------
--New York Times, April 23, 2001
Anyone who thinks that Mr. Nader himself has any remorse about his Green
Party candidacy for the presidency last year ... should think again.... Mr.
Nader, 67, says his only second thoughts about last year's election are regrets
that he did not get more votes. Does Mr. Nader worry about being a
spoiler in a close battle for the House? "Anybody who's trying to build a
party tries to build the party," he says. "You don't worry about how
it affects one or the other major parties."....
[Nader] acknowledges that
he has lost "quite a few" friends, with some of the liberals in
Congress the harshest critics.... He says the Democrats are
"pathetic," a bare "D plus" against the Republicans'
"D minus," but "they both flunk."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0423-01.htm
-----------------------
-- Interview, Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2001
LA TIMES: What if you had run in the Democratic primaries?
You would have debated Gore and Bill Bradley. You would have been able to
address the Democratic Convention in prime time.
NADER: It would have been a will-of-the-wisp, amnesiac experience. The only
thing they pay attention to is how many votes you take from them in November.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0506-08.htm
________________________________________
*2002*
--Ralph Nader Remarks, August 7, 2002, Washington Transcript Service
QUESTION: Do you think your run for the presidency had the political
benefit you expected?
NADER: Of course not, I lost. (LAUGHTER) However ... it sent a signal, if not
to the Republican Party, to the Democratic Party, that if they don't shape up
they're going to be shipping out. http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1P1:55073784
-----------------------
--Interview, Time, August 8, 2002.
TIME: You say that Progressives got to the polls in 2000, helping Democrats
win Senate seats and making a Democratic Senate possible. Got any regrets,
though, about throwing the presidency to Bush?
NADER: No, because it could have been worse. You could have had a Republican
Congress with Gore and Lieberman. http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/Ralph-Nader-Interview-Time8aug02.htm
-----------------------
--Jonathan Chait, The American Prospect, November 4, 2002
While Nader's attacks on Clinton and Gore might seem, on the surface, to
mirror the criticisms liberal Democrats make of centrist and conservative
Democrats, it reflects, in fact, something altogether different. Nader does not
confine his objection to the party's rightward turn under Clinton; his sense of
grievance with the party encompasses even its most liberal elements. In his
book, he denounces not just Democratic moderates but also the party's labor
allies and its Progressive Caucus, some of whose members he has vowed to unseat.
He has endorsed the Minnesota Green Party's campaign to unseat Sen. Paul
Wellstone, the closest thing to a real-world ally Nader could hope for....
If the purpose of Nader's
candidacy really was to build a viable third party, as he stated, he should
have been concerned only with maximizing his own vote total. Indeed, if this
was his goal, he would have had a clear long-term interest in Gore winning: If
Bush carried the election, many Green voters would probably return to the
Democratic fold in 2004. Yet Nader chose to help Bush and hurt Gore, even when
doing so came at his own expense.... [When others] proposed that Nader
supporters in swing states swap their votes with Gore supporters in safe states
-- thus maximizing the Nader vote while simultaneously helping Gore -- Nader
denounced the idea.
Then there was the debate
within the Nader campaign over where to travel in the waning days of the
campaign. Some Nader advisers urged him to spend his time in uncontested states
such as New York and California. These states -- where liberals and leftists
could entertain the thought of voting Nader without fear of aiding Bush --
offered the richest harvest of potential votes.... [But Nader,] the house radical of his own campaign, insisted on
spending the final days of the campaign on a whirlwind tour of battleground
states such as Pennsylvania and Florida. In other words, he chose to go where
the votes were scarcest, jeopardizing his own chances of winning 5 percent of
the vote, which he needed to gain federal funds in 2004.
Throughout the campaign,
Nader brushed aside concerns that he might help elect Bush by employing one of
several blithe quips. If asked about being a spoiler, he'd invariably reply,
"You can't spoil a system that's spoiled to the core." If asked about
helping defeat Gore, he'd answer, "Only Al Gore can defeat Al Gore."
Another Nader favorite was, "Would I be running if I were concerned about
taking votes from Al Gore? Isn't that what candidates try to do to one another
-- take votes?" Not since Steve Forbes has a presidential candidate turned
aside unwanted queries so robotically. Nader's one-liners were pure,
made-for-television non sequiturs, all refusing to engage on any substantive
level the fact that his candidacy might prove a decisive factor in Bush's
election....
To listen to Nader explain himself on these questions, then, is to stumble into
a funhouse world of illogic and trickery. His systematic dissembling was
necessary to hide something he could not, for political reasons, admit: Helping
elect George W. Bush was not an unintended consequence but the primary goal of
his presidential campaign.
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V13/20/chait-j.html
-----------------------
--Ronnie Dugger, founding editor of the Texas Observer, nominated Nader
at the 2000 Green Party convention, The Nation, December 2, 2002.
Given the GOP sweep in the
midterm elections, progressives and populists must position themselves to play
a pivotal role in the next presidential contest. As we demonstrated in 2000, we
are a fragmented political force, divided between those who supported, however
reluctantly, the Democratic choice, Al Gore, and those who backed the Green
Party's Ralph Nader. But the Bush disaster, compounded now by the meltdown of
the Democratic Party on November 5, is an emergency. We cannot afford another
division in our ranks that will bring about the election of George W. Bush in
2004.
We, the Nader people,
certainly put Bush close enough electorally for the Supreme Court to seize the
presidency for him. Gore "lost" because of many factors--including
his own empty campaign-- but the fact that an event has a multiplicity of
causes does not dissolve any of those causes or absolve any group of players of
their responsibility. National exit-poll data published the day after the
election suggested that Nader's candidacy cost Gore about three-quarters of a
million votes, but even exit polls that Nader himself cites indicate that
arguably we Nader voters made it possible for Bush to win New Hampshire's four
electoral votes (remember, Bush "won" by just four) and clearly
converted a Gore victory in Florida, with its decisive twenty-five electoral
votes, into the mesmerizing seesaw that the Supreme Court stopped when Bush was
allegedly up on Gore by 537 votes. It is very clear--who can persuasively deny
it?--that the more votes Nader gets in 2004, the likelier it is that Nader and
his supporters will elect Bush....
This June I called on my
friend Ralph in his offices at the Carnegie Foundation building in Washington
to discuss with him why I believe he must not run again. A shocked conviction
is growing among some people who backed him, I said, that as we love our
country and care about the world, we must do everything we can to beat Bush....
Ralph persists in
advancing the view that it does not matter (or does not matter enough to
matter) whether a Democrat or a Republican sits in the White House. His position
derives much of its energy and plausibility from moral fury against the
Democrats who, for example, helped pass the infamous USA Patriot Act and voted
to authorize Bush to attack Iraq in a war of aggression that will stain the
national escutcheon in history.... The pivotal issue, though, is whether we
should let this moral fury become blind rage that will help elect Bush in
2004....
Ralph's own statements in
the 2000 campaign, and his decision to campaign during its last days in states
that were tossups between Bush and Gore, including Florida, indicate that he
believes it is appropriate for the Greens to cause the Democrats to lose the
presidency again if that's what it takes to move the Democrats to the left. He
does not see electing Bush as the risk of the venture, but as a means to the
end of returning the party to the causes of the people. His method in 2000 was
to hold forth the progressive vision and beat the Democrat, which unavoidably
meant electing Bush. He is not given to saying, "Let's elect Bush so the
Democrats will return to the people," but that turned out to be the
real-world meaning of his 2000 candidacy, and it would again in 2004.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021202&s=dugger
________________________________________
*2003*
--Paul Krugman, The New York
Times, [The excerpt is not about Nader, but a reminder of why this matters so
much], June 3, 2003
The mystery of
Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious....
They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their case, while
dismissing contrary evidence.... Suggestions that the public was manipulated
into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that
misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this
administration, which to an extent never before seen in U.S. history
systematically and brazenly distorts the facts.
Am I exaggerating? Even as George Bush stunned reporters by declaring that we
have "found the weapons of mass destruction," the Republican National
Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays
taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children
denied any tax break by a last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American
households including a majority of those with members over 65 get nothing;
another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those
left behind do pay taxes.
And the bald-faced misrepresentation of an elitist tax cut offering little or
nothing to most Americans is only the latest in a long string of blatant
misstatements. Misleading the public has been a consistent strategy for the
Bush team on issues ranging from tax policy and Social Security reform to
energy and the environment.... It's long past time for this
administration to be held accountable. http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views03/0603-03.htm
-----------------------
--Mother Jones, November 11, 2003
After three years under George Bush, even some Greens are cool to a 2004
Nader run.... Nader won't officially declare until the end of this year,
but some say this is pure formality, that he'll be back, no question....
But that doesn't mean that Nader will bag an endorsement from the Green Party.
Many Greens point out that the party is making valuable progress in smaller
races throughout the country (for instance, a Green is in a run-off election
for mayor of San Francisco) -- and getting into large, "unwinnable"
races like the presidential election just detracts from these efforts. There
are currently about 175 Green office-holders throughout the country....
John Rensenbrink, one of the [Green] partys founders and co-editor of Green
Horizon Quarterly, a Green journal, says: "People...are very
focused on stopping the right-wing cabal that has taken over the country.
Therefore, the focus has to be on defeating Bush. Beyond that, the Green Party
needs to project a sense of urgency around saving the country, saving the
Constitution, saving the planet. There's a concern that we'll be deflected from
that message because of the baggage Ralph Nader has from 2000.... I'd add to
that that he 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...." The Green Party had little control over Nader during the 2000
election, and leaders point out that he waited till three years after the
campaign to give his donor list to the party, despite repeated requests.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/11/we_603_02a.html
________________________________________
*2004*
--Eric Boehlert, Salon.com, Feb. 21, 2004
Word that Ralph Nader will formally announce his plan to run for
president this weekend as an independent stirred harsh words and emotions not
just among Democrats, but even among the leftists and independents who
supported Nader four years ago.... Even some of Nader's closest
progressive allies have their doubts. "I love and appreciate him, but I
definitely want to get Bush out of office, so I won't vote for him, which would
be a first for me," says Medea Benjamin, the Green Party candidate for
U.S. Senate from California in 2000. She says it's good that Nader is not
running as a Green Party candidate....
Characteristically, Nader rejects blame for playing a spoiler role in 2000, and
dismisses his critics. "They should stop their chronic whining and look
inside [at] why they lost the election," ... he told the Wall Street
Journal. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/21/nader/
-----------------------
Reuters, February 22, 2004
[Ralph Nader] said on
Sunday he will try again this year as an independent.... Nader said
claims that his candidacy would distract from efforts to beat Bush in November
were a "contemptuous" attempt to restrict democracy and maintain what
he called the "two-party duopoly."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0222-02.htm
-----------------------
--Todd Gitlin, Salon.com, Feb 22, 2004
Nader's narcissism has metastasized to such proportions that he came
forward to announce his candidacy without being able to brandish a single one
of the celebrities who surrounded him in 2000 -- not Michael Moore, not Tim
Robbins or Susan Sarandon, not Patti Smith. In fact, more important, he cannot
offer the Green Party, whose nomination he disdains to seek -- so much for his
claim that he is the principled champion of third parties and their
indispensability in American history....
How grave Nader's decision
proves to be will, of course, depend on how the brutal face-off of 2004 shapes
up. Florida, New Mexico and New Hampshire are only three of the states where
even a weakened Nader might make a difference comparable to his decisive margin
in 2000. Accordingly, John Kerry has shrewdly said that he wants to appeal to
those who followed Nader in 2000.... What Nader's decision amounts to is
not logic but an exercise in monomania. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/02/22/nader_candidacy/index.html
-----------------------
--Ralph Nader News Conference, National Press Club, Washington DC,
February 23, 2004,
Mr. NADER: ...I think those who
use the word "spoiler" need to reexamine their otherwise steadfast
commitment to civil liberties, to choice, to freedom. I'm really amused by some
of the groups who are pro- choice on the abortion issue [and who] are against
candidate choice on the ballot. And there will be similar ironies transmitted
to their tender conscience in the coming months. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/23/politics/campaign/23NADER-TEXT.html?ex=1089086400&en=21442c8185657947&ei=5070
-----------------------
--Mother Jones, February 24, 2004
Nader explained his decision to run on NBCs Meet the Press on
Sunday: "Washington is still corporate-occupied territory, and the two
parties are ferociously competing to see who's going to go to the White House
and take orders from their corporate paymasters. So they may be different in
their mind, they may be different in their attention, they may be different in
their rhetoric, but in the actual performance these corporate interests and
their political allies are taking America down" [said Nader].
The problem with this line of argument is that it's total B.S. The past four
years have emphatically demonstrated the idiocy of Nader's contention, which
wasn't even true four years ago, that there's no daylight between the two
parties....
Rodger Schlickeisen of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, told
Motherjones.com that on environmental policy, for example, there are crucial
differences between the Bush administration and just about any Democrat who has
a chance at the presidency: "I can't imagine how someone could make a
statement that there's not much difference between the two parties, when its
not true on many progressive issues, but especially environmental issues. It's
very aggravating to us. No one who cares deeply about environmental issues
should even contemplate giving Nader a vote." http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/02/02_809.html
-----------------------
--Interview in Cincinatti, Ohio, March 2004,
QUESTION: There is still residue from the 2000 elections about Ralph
Nader being the spoiler candidate.... Did you give the election to President
Bush?
NADER: Well first of all how do you spoil a system that's spoiled to the core?
That's my first response to that. Second, there are so many
"what-ifs" in terms of Gore losing the election.... So they better
get used to being challenged by more and more third-parties. Some will be as
big as the [Ross] Perot candidacies; some of them will be small; some of them
will have an impact more in one state then another. http://www.goxray.com/index.php?id=476&cat=17
-----------------------
--Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker, March 8, 2004
More than any other single person, Ralph Nader is responsible for the
fact that George W. Bush is President of the United States. Nader is more
responsible than Al Gore, who, in 2000, put himself in the clear by persuading
more of his fellow-citizens to vote for him than for anybody else, which
normally -- in thirty-nine of the forty-two previous Presidential elections, or
ninety-three per cent --had been considered adequate to fulfill the candidates
electoral duty.... A post-election rogues gallery -- Jeb Bush, James Baker,
Katherine Harris, William Rehnquist and four of his Supreme Court colleagues --
helped, each rogue in his or her own way, but no single one of them could have
pulled off the heist without the help of the others. Nader was sufficient unto
himself.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?040308ta_talk_hertzberg
-----------------------
--Harry G. Levine, City University of New York,, on line essay,
March 26, 2004
In the year 2000, Ralph Nader strapped political dynamite onto himself
and walked into one of the closest elections in American history hoping to blow
it up. He wanted to punish the Clinton-Gore Democrats for having betrayed him
and the causes he believes in. His primary campaign mission was defeating Al
Gore, but Nader concealed this from his supporters, even as he went after votes
in swing states like Florida. On the day after election day, when everyone else
was grim, and many Democrats were furious at him, Ralph Nader was a happy
man....
The obvious question is where Ralph Nader's passion for punishing had
come from. What was he so angry about? The first and still most convincing
answer is that Nader felt utterly betrayed by the Clinton and Gore Democrats.
He was furious at them for rejecting him and the causes he believes
in....
[In his recent biography of Nader, Justin Martin] says that "no matter how
hard he tried to be evenhanded in doling out criticism of Bush and Gore, Nader
did show a bias" -- against Gore. "It was clear to many," writes
Martin, "that he truly despised Gore, while he was merely dismissive of
Bush." A friend said that Nader's "genuine contempt for Gore came out
during the election.".... Martin also reports the following:
"Gary Sellers, organizer of Nader's Raiders for Gore, had extensive
discussion with his old boss during the autumn of 1999. He recalls that leading
up to the election, at least, Nader seemed virtually consumed by his feelings
toward the vice-president. 'He had a personal animus toward Gore,' says
Sellers. 'Gore had moved to the center and that enraged Ralph. Gore also did
not return his phone calls. It was clear that Ralph's feelings were hurt.... He
was furious and he was going to teach Gore a lesson'."
http://www.soc.qc.edu/Staff/levine/Ralph-Nader-As-Mad-Bomber.html
-----------------------
--Harry G. Levine, City
University of New York,, on line essay, March 26, 2004
No prominent right-wingers
believe the two parties are now essentially the same. Rush Limbaugh
"Dittoheads" never say that Bush is the same as Gore or Clinton. Even
Pat Buchanan didn't say that in his bid for the White House. Indeed, for the
era that includes people like Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, George W.
Bush and Dick Cheney, the idea that fierce right-wing Republicans are the
identical twins of conservative Democrats like Al Gore is so wrong it is absurd.
And yet, in the 2000 election, Ralph Nader regularly, enthusiastically,
asserted that there was no significant difference between the two candidates.
Why?
In the 2000 campaign,
Nader well understood the substantial (or enormous) differences between Bush
and Gore. He understood that Bush and Cheney were hard right-wing Republicans.
But like many politicians, he could not reveal what he really thought and
wanted. So he needed another explanation for staying in all the way in all the
states. Nader's claim that Bush and Gore were basically the same was not the
motivation for campaigning hard in the swing states, it was the justification
for doing that. Ralph Nader exaggerated, distorted, misled, and hid what he
really knew and wanted. He dissembled. He lied.
By 2000, and perhaps as
early as 1996, Ralph Nader had a mission that he couldn't publicly admit.
Punishing the Democrats by defeating Al Gore was, I think, a politically
"crazy" goal, but Nader approached it with the same rationality he
used throughout his career. By any ordinary standard of compos mentis,
Nader knew what he was doing. I would say that Nader had become "mad"
(in both senses of the word). Like a fictional mad scientist, he devoted his
enormous skills, knowledge and reputation to pursuing a bizarre, personal
agenda. All things considered, Nader ran a brilliant campaign and he's quite
proud of that. And nothing he has said since indicates he thinks he made a
mistake.
http://www.soc.qc.edu/Staff/levine/Ralph-Nader-As-Mad-Bomber.html
-----------------------
--Dallas Morning News,
March 27, 2004
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 each 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. Among the new crop of Nader
donors: actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, Florida frozen-food
magnate Jeno Paulucci and Pennsylvania oil company executive Terrence Jacobs.
All have strong ties to the GOP."....
"Republicans are well aware that Ralph Nader played a spoiler role in the
2000 election. And there is no reason why they wouldn't want to encourage and
help him do so again in 2004," said Jano Cabrera, a spokesman for the
Democrat National Committee.... More than 24 Nader contributors of $250
or more about 10 percent of his total are otherwise reliable GOP donors, The
News review found. Mr. Paulucci, the creator of Chun King and Jeno's Pizza
Rolls, donated $2,000 in February to Mr. Nader. The Florida frozen-food
executive is a prolific contributor to the GOP, giving more than $150,000 to
the Republican Party and national candidates since 2000.... As for Ben Stein's
money, the television personality and outspoken advocate for the Republican
Party has contributed $500 to Nader and $1,000 to Mr. Bush this year. Records
indicate that over the last decade, Mr. Stein has given exclusively to the
GOP.... Others helping Mr. Nader with $2,000 checks are Robert Monks, who lost
a Senate race in Maine, and his wife, Millicent. Both have a long history of
contributing money to Republicans and are financially backing Mr. Bush's
re-election. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0327-05.htm
-----------------------
--New York Times, March 31, 2004
Ralph Nader knows all the arguments against him. He can recite, word for
importuning word, the letters from old friends urging him not to run for
president "all individually written, all stunningly similar" and he
does so with the theatrical relish of a man whose public life has been one
long, unyielding argument with the world.... "And the more I got of
these," Mr. Nader said, "the more I realized that we are confronting
a virus, a liberal virus. And the characteristic of a virus is when it takes
hold of the individual, it's the same virus, individual letters all written in
uncannily the same sequence"....
"We are going to focus on defeating George Bush and showing the Democrats,
if they're smart enough to pick up on it, how to take apart George Bush,"
Mr. Nader told a rally of a couple of hundred students at North Carolina State
University in Raleigh last Thursday.... But even some of Mr. Nader's
admirers remain skeptical of most or all of those arguments.....
"Conservatives for Nader," the comic Jon Stewart mused recently.
"Not a large group. About the same size as 'Retarded Death Row Texans for
Bush.' " [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0331-12.htm
-----------------------
--Dick Polman, Knight Ridder, April 4, 2004
When Ralph Nader is amused about something, a crooked smirk creases his
somber face.... "Oh, the whining!" he declared, once his mirth turned
to husky disdain. "The endless whining! The liberals are always whining!
You know, scapegoating me is a sign of a decadent party, a party that whines
instead of going to work. "And this liberal attitude of 'Anybody but
Bush,' that's like a virus....
Micah Sifry, a citizen activist and author who has known Nader for several
decades, said the other day, "There was a time when I could trust Ralph to
be intellectually honest, but I don't feel that way anymore.".... Jonathan
Chait, a liberal commentator, calls Nader "a selfish, destructive
maniac." Ice-cream magnate Ben Cohen, of Ben & Jerry fame, was a major
Nader financier in 2000; this year, he generated 40,000 emails to Nader
imploring him not to run.
The notables who have dumped Nader reads like a who's who of liberal Hollywood.
"Phil Donahue, Susan Sarandon," Nader grumbled - not to mention Danny
Glover, Bonnie Raitt, Michael Moore, Willie Nelson - "just look at the
remarkable unanimity among people who should know better. You know what this is?
This is panic! Total panic! They have amnesia about the terrible performance of
Clinton-Gore, and they just focus on what Bush has done." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0404-09.htm
-----------------------
-- Interview in Salon.com, April 12, 2004
SALON: You reject the position of those in the Green Party who
say that you should only run in "safe" states, either Democratic or
Republican. You intend to run even in states that are considered swing states.
Why?
NADER: Because if they're trying to build a party, they've got to go all
out in 50 states. It feeds a lot of cynicism to say to people in Wisconsin,
"Well, you're a close state so we're not going to campaign all out."
That is the first step toward being indentured to the Democratic Party. That's
the only reason they would not campaign in close states. [http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/04/12/nader/print.html
-----------------------
--The New York Times,
April 20, 2004
The consensus of Democrats is that
Mr. Nader cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000 by winning more votes than Mr.
Bush's victory margin in two states, Florida and New Hampshire, and by forcing
Mr. Gore to devote resources to states like Wisconsin that he would have won
easily if Mr. Nader had not been in the race. Some Democrats have voiced hope
that Mr. Nader might drop out of the race this year if he can influence some of
Mr. Kerry's stands on issues. But Mr. Nader said on Monday that he would not
quit under any circumstances. He said he had no regrets about running in
2000.... http://www.nytimes.com/top/news/washington/campaign2004/candidates/ralphnader/?inline=nyt-per-pol
-----------------------
-- Harry G. Levine, The Village Voice, May 3, 2004
[At a Nader fund raiser on October 14, 2000] I was introduced to Nader's
closest adviser, his handsome, piercingly intelligent 30-year-old nephew, Tarek
Milleron.... As Moore had, he claimed that Nader's campaign would encourage
Web-based vote-swapping between progressives in safe and contested states. But
when I suggested that Nader could gain substantial influence in a Democratic
administration by focusing his campaign on the 40 safe states and encouraging
his supporters elsewhere to vote Gore, Milleron leaned coolly toward me with
extra steel in his voice and body. He did not disagree. He simply said,
"We're not going to do that." "Why not?" I said. With
just a flicker of smile, he answered, "Because we want to punish the
Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them." There was a long silence and
the conversation was over. [http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0418/levine.php
-----------------------
--Tarek Milleron, Nader's campaign aide and nephew, Letter to the Village
Voice, May 11, 2004
"I never uttered the words "we want to punish the Democrats,
we want to hurt them, wound them".... I told Mr. Levine what I had
repeated many times during the 2000 campaign: "The Democrats should not be
allowed to take progressive voters for granted anymore. Democratic politicians
should pay for their betrayals in votes."
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0419/letters.php
-----------------------
--Harry G. Levine, Letter to the Village Voice, May 11, 2004
Tarek Milleron indeed said the things I reported. And despite his
protestations, Mr. Milleron just about admits this. He writes: "Democratic
politicians should pay for their betrayals in votes." This doesn't mean
Kerry should win by a smaller margin -- it means Kerry should lose and Bush
should win. Mr. Milleron's own words show us that Nader truly views his
presidential campaigns as weapons of vengeance aimed to defeat the Democrats.
In 2000, Ralph Nader claimed that he was running to win 5 percent of the
vote and build the Green Party by getting it federal funding. But this was a
deception, a lie. Nader's chief campaign goal was actually to punish the
Democrats by taking enough votes in some swing states like Florida to defeat Al
Gore. In effect, Nader tried to "Kill Bill and Al." Now, in 2004,
Nader has nothing to do with the Green Party and is running as an independent
claiming to be the anti-war and anti-Bush candidate. But this too is a
deception, a lie. Nader's chief goal this time is to punish the Democrats by
taking enough votes in some swing states to "Kill Kerry."
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0419/letters.php
-----------------------
--John Pearce, Common Dreams.org, May 27, 2004
In 2000, Nader ran primarily on the now famous Tweedledum and Tweedledee
argument: that there was no significant difference between Gore and Bush. With
that position no longer viable in the face of four stunning years of George W.
Bush, Nader has adopted a dramatically different campaign premise. He
says this time around, he'll help beat Bush.... On CNNs Inside Politics,
he went so far as to say very few of my votes will come from Democrats. It is
readily apparent why Nader has adopted this claim: He has little choice. The
popular fury at Bush among his natural constituency requires such a stand. But
is Nader's claim true? In a word, no.
We have just completed a study, Poll Watch 04, of every poll since Nader's
announcement ... [and] the results are overwhelming and clear. Of the 37 polls
reviewed, 32 show Nader hurting Kerry, while 1 shows Nader hurting Bush (and
that by a scant 1%). 4 show no effect.... Polls show Nader flipping New Jersey
and Pennsylvania from Kerry to Bush, and causing an 8% swing among the large
Arab American vote in the four critical swing states of Ohio, Michigan, Florida
and Pennsylvania. In fact, the Associated Press has reported that Nader is
swinging six states from Kerry to Bush.
At our new DontVoteRalph.net website, we'll update the Poll Watch 04 study....
In short, if Nader is telling the truth and is helping beat Bush, you can find
out there.... But after 37 polls, we believe the jury is in, and the verdict is
clear. Sadly, Nader's essential claim for 2004 is another of the big lies of
the 2004 campaign.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0527-14.htm
-----------------------
--Peter Dizikes, Salon.com, June 10, 2004
Ralph Nader's latest presidential campaign does not have an official
slogan. It does, however, have a kind of official rationalization. "I
think I'm going to take more votes away from Republicans than from
Democrats," Nader says, almost every time he speaks. Democrats doubt this
theory. And Nader admits no Republicans have asked him to leave the race or
expressed fear he will siphon votes from Bush. "I don't think they're in
with the trend," Nader explained. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/10/nader/
-----------------------
Interview, the Memphis Flier, June 23, 2004
QUESTION: Does it bother you when Democrats call you a spoiler?''
NADER: The more I hear that, the more I know the Democrats are decadent and
the more need there is to go after them and make them shape up or ship out...
They're very decadent. They don't change their game plan. They lose and lose at
the local, state, and national level.... They lost an election they won in 2000
- the presidential outcome. [laughs] So the more they scapegoat and lie, the
more decadent they are, the more necessary it is to form a third political
force to move in on them. http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ID=2945&onthefly=1
-----------------------
--Citizens for a Strong
Economy, [Phone script from the
conservative group], June 27 2004
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..... 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.... 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...
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!"
http://www.cse.org/newsroom/press_template.php?press_id=863
-----------------------
Michael Tomasky, American
Prospect, June 28, 1904
"It is in our interest,"
the politician said last week, "to bring the eight to 12 million
undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and become citizens of this great
nation".... [The second politician said:] "We have to limit the
number of people who come to this country illegally.... I don't like the idea
of legalization...."
The first quote is from
Republican Senator John McCain.... And the second quote? That was from Mr.
Progressive himself, Ralph Nader, speaking to Pat Buchanan in an interview for
Buchanan's magazine, The American Conservative.... So while the
largely conservative McCain was making a gesture against a right-wing ballot
measure, the supposedly progressive Nader was getting palsy-walsy with someone
who is about as far to the right as you can go in American politics and still
get on television....
This is the man who lectures the Democratic Party about its lack of
principles?.... I wonder what Nader would have to do or say for his troops to
give him up. If working with right-wing activists in two swing states and
toadying up to Pat Buchanan -- probably the gold medallist of American
xenophobia over the last two decades ... on immigration issues aren't
disqualifying, what could possibly be? Probably very little, alas. The Nader
campaign isn't about politics at all; it's about psychology -- the psychology
of disruption. The American right understands the condition well, which
is a big part of the reason it's happy to help. But as Nader moves forward
after having been denied the Greens' ballot line, he'll be relying more and
more on Republican and right-wing organizations in various states to get him on
the ballot. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7962
-----------------------
--Joe Conason, Salon.com, June 29, 2004.
The Nader presidential campaign received illicit assistance for its
petition drive in Oregon last weekend from two local conservative
organizations, which were "encouraged" by President Bush's campaign
committee.... The two conservative groups admit that they are backing President
George W. Bush, and quite frankly describe Nader as nothing more than a convenient
instrument to drain support from Democrat John Kerry in a closely fought
battleground state....
As Russ Walker of Citizens
for a Sound Economy explained, "We disagree with Ralph Nader's politics,
but we'd love to see him make the ballot." Walker even posted a
"phone script" on his group's Web site that offered activists talking
points to convince their fellow conservatives to sign Nader petitions.
Mike White, director of the Oregon Family Council, which focuses on social
issues such as abortion and gay rights, was equally candid: "We aren't
bashful about [aiding Nader]. We are a conservative, pro-family
organization, and Bush is our guy on virtually every issue."....
Yet Nader still insists that he will draw more votes from Bush than from Kerry.
He often makes that dubious claim while campaigning in New Hampshire, where
four years ago he almost certainly played a role in delivering the state to
Bush. No matter what Nader may say to exculpate himself, it's becoming
difficult to believe that he truly wants anything except attention for himself
-- and another four years of Republican rule. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/06/29/nader/index.html
-----------------------
--Lisa Chamberlain, Salon.com, July 1, 2004
Ralph Nader spent his 70th birthday with Bill Maher on his HBO show
"Real Time," where Maher pressed him on exactly what his
controversial fourth presidential campaign will contribute to the national debate.
Nader repeated once again that he's the only candidate not beholden to
"corporate America".... It is worth noting that the onetime national
hero wasn't celebrating his landmark birthday surrounded by the hundreds of
people he has worked with and influenced over four decades. Indeed, virtually
no one who worked with him since the heady days of Nader's Raiders is
supporting him politically or personally today. He has inspired almost no
loyalty and instead has alienated many of his closest associates. The
estrangement between Nader and many of his former intimates is not a new
phenomenon; it's not the result of his ruinous campaign for president in 2000;
it dates back to his earliest days as a public figure.
Dozens of people who have worked with or for Nader over the decades have had
bitter ruptures with the man they once respected and admired. The level of
acrimony is so widespread and acute that it's impossible to dismiss those
involved as disgruntled former employees, disillusioned leftists or self-seeking
turncoats. Usually it was Nader himself who ratcheted up what was often just a
parting of ways into professional warfare and vitriolic personal attacks. While
Nader continues to campaign against corporate abuse, his own record, according
to many of those who have worked closely with him, is characterized by
arrogance, underhanded attacks on friends and associates, secrecy, paranoia and
mean-spiritedness -- even at the expense of his own causes....
But no one expects that Nader will actually withdraw from the race -- despite
the fact that even among those who maintain cordial relations with him, there
isn't one former associate who thinks his campaign is a good idea.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/01/nader_jacobs/
-----------------------
--New York Times, July 1, 2004
In his search for access to the ballot, Ralph Nader can sometimes seem
as if he has never met a third party he did not like.... Mr. Nader's
efforts have only intensified given that last weekend he was spurned by the
Green Party, which endorsed him for president in 1996 and 2000. He is also
getting helping from other unexpected quarters.... Republicans and some
conservative groups in Oregon, Arizona and Wisconsin are feverishly, if not
cynically, mobilizing to get him on ballots in those states in a drive to
siphon votes from the likely Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry....
Shawn O'Hara, national chairman of the Reform Party ... insisted that Mr.
Nader's views were not entirely out of synch with the party as currently
constructed.... "We've moved to the center," Mr. O'Hara said, while
conceding that he once favored the execution of doctors and nurses who
performed abortions....
Conservative groups have already mobilized for Mr. Nader in Oregon as well as
in Arizona, where 46 percent of the registered voters who signed petitions last
month to get Mr. Nader on the ballot were Republicans, almost double the
percentage of Democrats or Independents....
In Wisconsin, a
conservative group said it was preparing to follow Oregon's example, by urging
Republicans to sign petitions when Mr. Nader's signature drive begins next
month. "We'll definitely be spreading the word that we'd like to see Nader
on the ballot," said Cameron Sholty, the Wisconsin state director for
Citizens for a Sound Economy, a conservative antitax group. "We'll do
phone trees and friends-of-friends, and those Nader events will be a great way
to drive our membership to get out to sign petitions for Nader." In the interview, Mr. Nader said he had not
seen any evidence that Republicans had acted inappropriately.... [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/01/politics/campaign/01NADE.html?n=Top%2fNews%2fWashington%2fCampaign%202004%2fCandidates%2fRalph%20Nader]
-----------------------
--Associated Press & CBS, July 3, 2004,
Independent candidate Ralph Nader, denied a spot on the Arizona ballot, accused
the Democrats and presidential candidate John Kerry of engaging in political
"dirty tricks.''.... Nader and Kerry met in May, with the two
offering compliments following the session. Whatever truce existed was clearly
gone on Friday as Nader campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese warned Democrats about
future ballot challenges. "John Kerry may be making an enemy of Ralph
Nader if he doesn't stop the harassment," Zeese said. "We've been
focusing our criticism on Bush rather than Kerry, but Kerry has a pretty lousy
record himself."
http://cbs2.com/politics/politicsnational_story_185170622.html
-----------------------
--Interview with Judy Woodruff, CNN, July 5, 2004
WOODRUFF: Terry McAuliffe is basically calling on you to disavow the
Republicans, the conservatives who are helping you in Oregon and other states,
Citizens for a Sound Economy and any of these other conservative groups. Are
you prepared to do that?
NADER: It's just press releases, Judy. They have produced nothing. The real
results have come by the Democrats obstructing us, infiltrating our political
convention to swell the numbers so we close the doors, thinking we had enough.
And...
WOODRUFF: But these conservative groups have said openly...
NADER: No, they haven't produced anything. They haven't produced anything.
WOODRUFF: ... that they're supporting you in Oregon.
NADER: They haven't produced a thing. We didn't see any evidence whatsoever.
But we did see three corporate law firms in Phoenix hired by the Democrats,
with the approval of Terry McAuliffe, to harass us and get us off the Arizona
ballot. So the Democrats are obstructing, the Republicans are just talking.
WOODRUFF: So you're comfortable with the Democrats furious at you and the
Republicans embracing you?
NADER: I'm trying to get as many votes as we can get....
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/05/ip.01.html
________________________________________
August 2004
Go To NADER NEWS -- JULY 2004 (where the saga
continues)
RETURN TO: THE REAL RALPH FOR
MUCH MORE INFO ON RALPH
Harry G.
Levine / Department of Sociology / Queens College / City University of New York
hglevine@QC.edu / comments welcome
_______________________________________