Go get ‘em Ralph!

Posted by: K. Russell at December 30, 2003 09:27 PM

Although response to Ralph Nader’s extraordinary interview on CSPAN Jan 04 has been overwhelming, the US Press has yet to report this wonderful development, which is sure to upset the Democrats and Republicans alike. What a brilliant man!

Not even the Washington Post or the New York Times? Shame on the US!

Posted by: Trista di Genova at January 11, 2004 04:15 PM

I would like to know Mr. Nader’s position on Bush’s latest amnesty/”guest worker” proposal, as well as his stance on current illegal aliens. I am also interested in what Mr. Nader’s position is on Non-Immigrant Visa (NIV) programs; specifically including H1b and L1 visas.

I am waiting for his response.

Posted by: Jerry at January 18, 2004 12:38 PM

Mr. Nader and his supporters ought to ask themselves whether we would be mired in Iraq, sinking deep into debt, and watching hard-won environmental protections unravel on a weekly basis if Al Gore had won the presidency. Are you looking forward to 4 more years of the same and worse? Were you so insulted by your exclusion from the 2000 debates that you would rather spoil any chance of a Democratic victory than spare the country four more years of this cretin?

Posted by: John Goldfarb at January 26, 2004 10:29 PM

To blame Mr. Nader for the Democrats losing in 2000 is an absurdity. As he has said himself, it was Gore’s race to lose. The Dem party’s shortcomings are of no fault to anyone but themselves; the people are clearly disappointed and seek an alternative. I hope that Nader runs this year, for I am now of age to vote, and it would be an honour to give my first vote to such a qualified candidate. What an efficient use of a vote it would be; each vote taken from the democrats is a cry out for action, for real change. Vote with conscience, not cold feet.

Posted by: Amee' R. LaTour at January 29, 2004 03:12 PM

Of COURSE Nader helped give the election to Bush! In Florida, Bush edged Gore by a mere 537 votes in the final count, and Nader collected 97,488. If the Nader votes had been divided just 50.5% to 49.5% in favor of Gore (a far more likely case than the other way around) we would not have had the IMBECILE in the White House! DON‘T DO IT AGAIN, RALPH!

Posted by: Jack Latendre at February 4, 2004 02:22 PM

As it now looks, Howard Dean will not be running against Bush in November and so the American voters do not have an option of a candidate that does not support the unilateral pre-emptive war we are waging in Iraq. This is a defining issue for our country’s future and our role as the world’s only super-power. Are we to continue polarizing the rest of the world and to fuel the fire of hatred against America? Or are we to show the world that we are a loving and peaceful nation that values the opinions of all people, regardless of race, religion, or economic status. This is why we should have another option in 2004 and NADER MUST RUN AGAIN!

Posted by: Christian at February 5, 2004 09:27 PM

I have put my thoughts about what Nader should do at this websote:

http://www.naderforsenate.us

Posted by: Skip Mendler at February 6, 2004 08:00 AM

Mr. Nader: Please, PLEASE do NOT run this year. It is becasue of you that we have George Bushiin office now.
You have some wonderful ideas, but help whoever might be the Democratic candidate.
PLEASE don’t let you ego take command and once again split the vote. Otherwise, we;ll have another 4 years of this nightmarish administration.
Thank You.
Peter Gordy

Posted by: Peter Gordy at February 6, 2004 09:19 AM

Mr. Nader: Please, PLEASE do NOT run this year. It is becasue of you that we have George Bushiin office now.
You have some wonderful ideas, but help whoever might be the Democratic candidate.
PLEASE don’t let you ego take command and once again split the vote. Otherwise, we;ll have another 4 years of this nightmarish administration.
Thank You.
Peter Gordy

Posted by: Peter Gordy at February 6, 2004 09:20 AM

Be realistic, Christian … NO 3rd party candidate can win the presidency, at least not until a Constitutional Amendment corrects the problem called the Electoral College. Nader can only hurt the Democratic candidate by running, thus helping give us four more years of Dubya.

Posted by: Jack Latendre at February 6, 2004 09:40 AM

Christian—we DO have a candidate who did not support the pre-emptive, unilateral war in Iraq—-Gen. WESLEY CLARK! Please check out his web site www.clark04.com for more information about this admirable man!

Posted by: Katharine Christie at February 6, 2004 07:01 PM

Ralph Nader must run…..

Since 2000-We have seen Worldcom, Enron, Bectel, Halliburton….

9/11, the fall of AARP promoting a crumbling Americam health care system ,skyrocketing prescription drug prices, soccer Moms and Dads losing their hi-tech jobs, exporting and outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, education costs run amuck, Pension-stock market-IRA scandals.Bush wars, etc.

Ralph do not listen to the political or labor bosses out of tune and out of touch with american families. Appeal to citizens directly. You can win and unite this divided America.

Ralph run….This time a smarter and better campaign of communication addressing the needs of citizens. Name a running mate and let us begin.

American voters do not need Republican Bush running or the Democrat alternative of Bush Light.

Posted by: John Gatti Jr at February 7, 2004 05:38 PM

Yeah, Ralph can “win” all right … 2.74% in 2000! And if you don’t think that he seriously hurt Gore and thus put Bush in, please read
http://www.mikehersh.com/Did_Nader_Help_or_Hurt_Al_Gore.shtml

Posted by: Jack Latendre at February 7, 2004 09:10 PM

As much as I support Ralph Nader and his goals for the U.S., I think now is the time for everyone to the left of Bush to unite as one. That may be the only way to vote the incumbent Bush out of office in 2004. All of the candidates—from Nader to Dean to Clark—would solve many more of the problems before us than George Bush. But if we splinter we will LOSE. Please, Mr. Nader, put your considerable influence and support behind the Democratic frontrunner.

Posted by: J. L. King at February 8, 2004 04:24 PM

I hope Mr. Nader throws his hat in the ring. “Anybody but George Bush” is not an idea. Its not a constructive platform.

Its simply a cry of desparation and lack of original thought.

Ralph Nader has vision! He has ideas! Don’t smother those ideas behind blind hatred of President Bush.

Posted by: Doug at February 9, 2004 10:34 AM

And siphoning off enough Independent votes to keep Bush in office IS “constructive”?

Posted by: Carl at February 9, 2004 11:28 AM

I think Nader for Senate is a wonderful idea! (See the http://www.naderforsenate.us page of Skip Mendler.) He could have his national podium there, and might even do the country some good!

Posted by: Phyllis at February 9, 2004 11:42 AM

That brings up another point for all who want Nader to run for president: if by some wild fluke (or miracle if you prefer) he DID manage to get elected, what can he REALISTICALLY hope to accomplish with virtually all of Congress against him?

The most important thing to do this year is get the anti-environment, pro-war, pro-corrupt-business Bush OUT of office. Send Nader to the Senate for a term or two, where he can build alliances and possibly make some POSITIVE contributions to the country for a change. Then he can run for president in 2016, and maybe have enough coat-tails to bring some others of the Green Party into Congress to help him.

Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2004 01:01 PM

Dear Mr. Nader,

Please DO NOT run in the 2004 election!!!

Please
Please
Please

You have great ideas but splitting the vote will only be shooting this country in the foot!

Posted by: Alastair Clarke at February 9, 2004 05:56 PM

The Democrats and Republicans in this country are at each others throats. We have a government of paralysis.

Nothing will ever change and and is getting worse. The special interests will win again if either BUSH or BUSH LIGHT wins. They give to both sides. It is like a law firm, some are Republicans and some are Democrats. Whoever wins-the law firm wins.

NADER should run and get into the debates.

We need a new course for American workers and citizens.

Posted by: John Gatti Jr at February 9, 2004 06:57 PM

Peter, with all due respect, I think you are the one who needs to be realistic. A third party candidate cannot win, exactly because of cynical views like your own and re-structuring or doing away with the electoral college will hurt both Democrats and Republicans, so it will never be in their interest to change the system.

Posted by: Christian at February 9, 2004 08:02 PM

Okay, Christian, you’ve just admitted that Nader can not win. So why spend the money and effort for an impossible cause? It would be better to aim for the much more realistic goal of a Senate seat, where he could work for a term or two on election reform.

While it’s true that we’re stuck with the Electoral College, the Constitution does NOT specify HOW the states are to choose electors. (Read Article II, Section 1, paragraph 2.) There are two possibilities of doing away with the present system of winner-take-all in each state which effectively blocks a 3rd party candidate from ever winning the presidency: (1) divide the electors proportional to the popular vote or (2) implement Instant Runoff Voting. Either of these can give 3rd parties a toe-hold toward the ultimate goal of someday having a viable 3rd party presidential candidate. But it can’t happen in 2004.

Posted by: T.J. at February 9, 2004 10:05 PM

where can i get info on Ralph Nader??? anyone have good websites for him?
Thanks!

Posted by: School Project at February 10, 2004 03:15 PM

USA Threatens Earth Security

SEE URL

Posted by: jonah at February 10, 2004 07:23 PM

If Ralph Nader runs for president this planet is guaranteed another four years of horror from the Bush administration. Nader’s the #1 reason Bush is in office today. There’s no denying this.

If you people are like me and want a safer planet, do not give Mr. Nader one second of your time.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe at February 11, 2004 11:30 AM

If the media would quit trying to shove prechosen candidates down our throats, the democratic party wouldn’t split. If Kerry is chosen as the democratic candidate, I hope Mr. Nader runs, he will have my vote.

Posted by: mace at February 11, 2004 04:32 PM

I tend to think that Nader running outside the Green Party is an interesting idea. Originally the Green Party was envision as not left or right-but a redefinition of the center. IMHO the GP USA has become essentially a classical leftist party.

What I really would like to see Nader do is to reach out to disenfranchised voters outside his traditional base—-into rural areas and constituencies perceived as “conservative”.

This year we have Bush telling the folks in his own party that oppose the Bush Guest worker bill-you have noplace to go—and the democrats in congress despite the objections of leaders like Gov. Lamm of Colorado and Gene McCarthy, can think of nothing more to do than to propose a measure that would hurt US workers even more than the Bush proposal.

http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/bush_guestworkerplan.htm

Nader has already proposed lifting the federal income tax from incomes less than $100/year. That is real relief to working people. If he can address this guest worker issue forcefully and credibly, IMHO his campaign could become something very different than it was last time. He really might redefine the center.

Posted by: Randall Burns at February 11, 2004 08:07 PM

Well, mace, you might as well go ahead and vote for Bush then … because that’s what you are effectively doing.

Posted by: Jack at February 12, 2004 02:15 PM

Randall: I think Nader running outside the COUNTRY is an interesting idea!!

Personally, I don’t know many families with incomes of less than $100 per year, so I don’t think that’ll help many people!

Posted by: T.J. at February 12, 2004 02:37 PM

i’ve been postin’ on many boardz recently regardin’ Nader’z recent interview on npr, an’ tha response frum most people haz been similar inn many wayz to my postz on mainstream sportz message boardz: inna time when we need to embrace diversity, theez people repudiate my werdz simply coz a tha way i spell, an’ show undezervin’ discrimination.

am i playing tha victim role? NO. i am just acknowlegin’ tha facthat theez so-call’d inependent media ouletz(wbai, indymedia, tha nation and otherz) contradict themselvez when they censor Ralph Nader.

it iz true. mark green, campaignin’ inn NY fore John Curry Chicken, haz soldout an’ iz a master manipulator, collaboratin’ witha likez of WBAI radio, which fore me, haz become unlistenable disgustin’, kill yerself, boring radio; they don’t allow dissent, ore tha mention of namez, an’ tha membership iz now a forma slavery, much like in tha book animal farm.

my biggest point iz that i’m a NADERAIDER!!!! anyone that voted 4 NADER in 2000 should bee prouda themselvez. also, i hope that other people following this campaign will divest of white supremacist, discriminatory notionz( many are racist an’ biast an’ don’t ven know it) and embrace diversity.

so, tha destitute, and EVERYONE should bee welcome inn this NADER 2004 CAMPAIGN. noone should bee silenced ore ignor’d, ore excluded inn any way. LOVE should bee what drivez this campaign if inn fact NADER doez what tha people are calling on him to do. tha neo-liberal camapign, err tha kerry campaign, at least many of theez followerz settling fore what they believe tha worst a two evilz iz tha product a fear an’ hatred. HATE CAN KILL. HATE IZ WHY 10,000 iRAQI’Z ARE DEAD. HATE IZ WHAT IZ LEADIN’ MILLIONZ OF AMERICANZ TO BLINDLY SUPPORT A NEO-LIBERAL CAMPAIGN THAT INN KNOW WAY SPEAKZ TO THA HEARTZ A PEOPLE.

and in tha werdz a marty schottenheimer, “IT TAKEZ PEOPLE.”

LET‘Z DEMAND RALPH RUN WITH RALLY’S. LET‘Z SHOW THA WORLD THA NADER RAIDERZ ARE THA COOLEST, MOST PASSIONATE GROUPA PEOPLE. IF NADER RUNZ WE MUST NEVER SLEEP. MUST NEVER LOZE OUR FOCUS, ORE PRIDE.

VOTE NADER 2004
VOTE NADER2004

Posted by: YA TITTLE at February 13, 2004 07:14 PM

That bit of inanity seems to have pretty well killed off interest in this discussion! It’s just as well - no one was convincing the other side anyway.

Posted by: T.J. at February 16, 2004 01:08 PM

No, No, No a thousand times no. You would have to have your head stuck in the sand to not see the effect of Nader’s running in 2000. Every day we see the effect! I believe that Nader supporters ought to direct all of their efforts to state and local issues where they have a chance. I agree with many of their issues. But to have Nader run for President scares the peewaddens out of me. Bush must not be reelected. Sure it is a cop out to be an Anybody-but-Bush-er but consider where this nation could be with another 4 years of him

Posted by: paul at February 16, 2004 05:15 PM

Ralph: Don’t do it. Getting Bush out of the White House is too important for you to siphon off a single vote that otherwise would likely go to the Democratic nominee.

Continue to speak out on the travesty of the Bush administration, but don’t run.

I voted for you in 2000. I won’t do it in 2004.

Posted by: Roger at February 17, 2004 09:25 AM

Ralph Nador and John Kerry and all liberal left-wing democrats are socialists by definition. You all hate Bush because he stands up to terrorists. You all are afraid of terrorists and want to hide like Clinton did. Clinton brought us 9-11, World Trade Center in 95, Kobar Towers, USS Cole, and fleeing Somolia which emboldended the terrorists. Who do you think Osama would vote for? Kerry or Bush??? Get some back bone wimps.

Posted by: Ben at February 17, 2004 03:34 PM

I voted for Mr. Nader in 2000, not because I agreed with the Green Party’s bizarre, unrealistic “platform” or even with all of Mr. Nader’s policies. No, I voted for Ralph in the hope that he would receive enough votes (3%) to qualify for campaign financing in the 2004 election.

It is Mr. Nader’s patriotic duty to enter the ‘04 race, if for no other reason than to serve as the Boomer Generation’s “institutional memory” before Kerry hypnotizes the youth who are being misled by the maniacal Democrat “pols and pros” who will use any means to return to power. Ralph is correct in that, as politics is practiced today, there is NO difference between the Republican and Democrat parties at the “retail” so-called mainstream level.

Young people just becoming active DO NOT KNOW about the Kerry betrayals of so many issues and people, nor that Kerry is and has been an ALLY of the Bush League and the oligarchs they all serve. Only Ralph Nader can resurrect sufficient facts so that Kerry is stopped and the Bushes are held to an accounting. Our nation and the world are at stake!

See: “False Profits,” the book about the BCCI bank scandal involving the Saudis, Pakistanis, the Bush and other oligarch families. See its index: Kerry, for how he soft-pedaled the Senate investigation to protect senior Democrat operatives and their patrons. Also, see “The Men We Left Behind” for how Kerry, in league with John McCain, helped to cover up the scandal about how Kissinger, Nixon and a bipartisan sequence of successors sold out the men abandoned in Vietnam after we pulled out in 1975. Neither right-wing fantasy nor mysticism, the book documents the shenanigans and cover-up.

Finally, “dig up” the details of the death of Senator John Heinz, a Republican from Pennsylvania who died in a mysterious helicopter crash superficially investigated. Look at Theresa Heinz’s politics and those of her father. John Kerry “inherited” power just as he’s believed he’d eventually “inherit” the Kennedy machine in Massachusetts and nationally.

Wake up. It’s not just about his hair and resonant voice. John Kerry is an empty suit, dangerously so.
Ralph Nader can and should hold Kerry to account!
Kerry is cut from the same cloth as the Bush folk.
Do not let them fool America without Resistance!
Run, Ralph! Run!

Posted by: Dick Farley at February 17, 2004 10:32 PM

Ben: You’re an IDIOT!

Posted by: T.J. at February 18, 2004 09:13 AM

I tend to think that Nader running outside the Green Party is an interesting idea. Originally the Green Party was envision as not left or right-but a redefinition of the center. IMHO the GP USA has become essentially a classical leftist party.

What I really would like to see Nader do is to reach out to disenfranchised voters outside his traditional base—-into rural areas and constituencies perceived as “conservative”.

This year we have Bush telling the folks in his own party that oppose the Bush Guest worker bill-you have noplace to go—and the democrats in congress despite the objections of leaders like Gov. Lamm of Colorado and Gene McCarthy, can think of nothing more to do than to propose a measure that would hurt US workers even more than the Bush proposal.

http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/bush_guestworkerplan.htm

Nader has already proposed lifting the federal income tax from incomes less than $100,000/year.(replacing it with a tax on wealth concentration and pollution). That is real relief to working people. If he can address this guest worker issue forcefully and credibly, IMHO his campaign could become something very different than it was last time. He really might redefine the center.

Posted by: Randall Burns at February 19, 2004 07:27 PM

But most likely he’ll just give us four more years of Bush …

Posted by: T.J. at February 20, 2004 12:53 AM

Mr. Nader,
I think your message is important but I think it is important for you to win at Senate level first. I believe that you will gain experience there and be able to do good work there. It will also show that you are able to work WITH your constituents, not always against them, as they may fear.
Please consider running at the Senate level. This is an area in which you can make a real difference. We must get Bush out of office. If you run, he will only be pleased at the thought. I’d rather he wasn’t.
Thank you for considering my thoughts.

Posted by: Jody at February 20, 2004 01:55 PM

I know you are fully aware of the damage you would be dealing to our country as a whole by running. Though you are not supported by the Green Party now and will not deal the same damage that you had done last election, running as an independent will still take votes away from where they are needed.
I know you realize that you cannot win and are looking to create change. So support a democratic candidate who has a very good chance of beating Bush. The environment will be in better hands if Kerry wins than if Bush stays.

Posted by: Macy Erickson at February 20, 2004 05:46 PM

Please, please for the sake of the United States, don’t run again and place in jeopardy the chances of defeating President Bush. Our country needs a complete regime change and your running will put the possibility of presidential change in serious doubt. Do your patriotic duty and don’t run.

Posted by: Nancy Russell at February 20, 2004 08:29 PM

ATTN.: Excellencies, Honorable Heads of State, Honorable Members of the U.S. Senate and Congress, People of California, Brothers and Sisters

Re: The John Kerry/George W. Bush Connection!
Yet another Bonesman has his eye on the Oval Office: View the full 60 Minutes program online!
Senator John Kerry, Democrat, Skull & Bones 1966.
Click here For Breaking News!
http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=36

At Issue: Yet another Bonesman has his eye on the Oval Office: Senator John Kerry, Democrat, Skull & Bones 1966.

At Issue: John Kerry Blood brother of George W. Bush in Skull and Bones: …

`Bones don’t care who wins,”
said author Alexandra Robbins,
“the secrecy shrouding the 171-year-old society. …”

“Senator John Kerry and George W. Bush, Time, Newsweek, Journalists, Haliburton, Donaldson, Frederick Smith, Homeland Security and more have all made their allegiance to the misogynist Skull and Bones and Secrecy and not Democracy.
There sole purpose is to get Skull and Bones people into power….”

“What, if not the madness of elite leadership, is Skull and Bones dedicated to?”

Recently, Democratic Presdiential Candidate, John Kerry has been asked about
Skull and Bones,
and his staff has made it clear that he does not intend to make any comment, now or in the future. . . . After all, he has taken an oath of secrecy.
Jon Rappoport

At Issue: Excerpts from the CBS 60 Minutes Program
with
Alexandra Robbins,
author of Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power

View the full 60 Minutes program online:
http://www.matrixmasters.com/world/usnews/skullandbones.html

Posted by: 2 Tochtli 10 Tochtli at February 20, 2004 10:24 PM

ATTN.: Excellencies, Honorable Heads of State, Honorable Members of the U.S. Senate and Congress, Brothers and Sisters

RE: Culture Wars: Gay Marriage: We encourage you to fight to legalize Gay-Marriage so that homosexual people may finally gain equal rights under the U.S. Constitution.

At Issue: In conclusion, since considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage would be an extremist piece of legislation, and since such a constitutional amendment is supported by the far right and/or neo-conservative branch of government, it ought not be considered by the good people of Massachusetts. Rather, we encourage you to disobey the neo-conservative movement by upholding what the high court of Massachusetts ruled when .considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage: “…A rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional…”

Dear Excellencies, Honorable Heads of State, Honorable Members of the U.S. Senate and Congress, Brothers and Sisters:

In September 1996, President Clinton signed the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), which requires the federal government to ignore legal marriages between same-sex couples, and allows states to ignore such marriages performed in any other state. The legislation was approved by the House 342-to- 67 on July 13, and by Senate House 85-to-14 on September 10 (ACLU BACKGROUND BRIEFING: Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Ban February 1997). In this paper I will argue to dispel the misconception that gay marriage is immoral, and further, I will argue in favor of legalizing homosexual marriage so that homosexual partners gain equal rights under the constitution. Constitutional Amendments and Acts such as the DOMA Act and other similar initiatives have and are sweeping the country despite the fact that they are unconstitutional or completely out of line within the bounds of US Constitutional law. The DOMA Act, Prop 22 and moreover, the recent call for a Constitutional Amendments Banning Gay Marriage by the Honorable Senator William Frist, are unconstitutional in that they directly violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution; they violate a same-sex couple’s right to travel, and they violate equal protection for homosexual partners.

Sure, the myth or “traditional definition of marriage” that most people have been using for years is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife; wedlock; wedding or a close union. This marriage is called a Levirate whereby a widow marries a brother of her dead husband (William A. Haviland, 1999. Cultural Anthropology. Publisher: Earl McPeek/Harcourt Brace College Publishers. P.240-242). In fact, the Holy family of Christianity is the product of leviratic marriage where Mary’s husband Joseph was her father’s brother’s son (William A. Haviland, 1999. Cultural Anthropology. Publisher: Earl McPeek/Harcourt Brace College Publishers. P.261). Thus, it seems that marriage, same-sex or otherwise, is not “gravely immoral” and does go against “moral law,” “natural” or otherwise. Therefore, there can be no moral justification for Pope John Paul II’s repeated assertions that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples. Accordingly, the Reverend Andrew Greeley, a leading Catholic sociologist in the United States said himself that, “Vatican officials seem to think that they still have the same kind of credibility they once had, and they don’t.” In short, it appears that the universal truth regarding Gay-Marriage is that it is universally and cross-culturally acceptable, and it appears that marriage ought not be reserved for heterosexual couples.

Sure, the roots of the family go back to a series of regulations imposed by the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th Century AD that prohibited close marriage, discouraged adoption, divorce and remarriage (all of which had been previously respectable in the Old Testament of the Bible among other sources; the Bible makes this clear). This prohibition helped to strengthen the conjugal tie between one man and one woman, but at the expense of consaguineal ties (blood ties). Thus, if we look at marriage we ought to look at the religious histories of these kinds of ideas. Ideas do change, but appears that these kinds of ideas are changing now. For as with many other religious decrees, the real purpose is political. And so, perhaps, we ought to accept same-sex marriage, now, since homosexuals do not share Equal Rights under the U.S. Constitution.

In the United States there is no doubt that homosexual couples who wish to marry will be met with considerable resistance, in spite of the fact that there is nothing abnormal about it, homosexual marriage, in any scientific sense. In fact, in some other societies, same-sex marriages are regarded as perfectly appropriate. Marriage is defined as a relationship between one or more men (males) and one or more women (females) recognized by society as having a continuing claim to the right of sexual access to one another (William A. Haviland, 1999. Cultural Anthropology. Publisher: Earl McPeek/Harcourt Brace College Publishers. P.233-235).

There was the California Proposition 22 counter argument that advocated, “Tolerance and respect for people with different beliefs are not just words, but real life values. A fair-minded person’s exercise of freedom of conscience in support of traditional marriage is not hatred, bigotry, discrimination or extremism towards any person or their family, but affirms the irreplaceable role of marriage between men and women in our society” (Proposition 22/ Protection of Marriage Committee).

On the contrary, anti-gay marriage bans are inappropriate within the bounds of US Constitutional law. Advocates of the California Protection of Marriage Initiative (Proposition 22/ Protection of Marriage Committee) say the California Protection of Marriage Initiative defines marriage in California as between a man and a woman. They say that it does not take away anyone’s rights, or attack any group of people or their family, and that it merely affirms the irreplaceable role of marriage between men and women in our society. However, Prop 22 does indeed take away one’s constitutional rights, and moreover, attacks groups of people and their families. Thus, it appears from this exposure that Prop 22 does not affirm the “irreplaceable role of marriage between man and women in our society.”

In 1996, when President Clinton signed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, confirming the right of each state to determine its own laws on same-gender marriage, and then declared that the United States government recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, this measure passed the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and so far, 30 other states, including California have passed their own Protection of Marriage laws. But the State Law part of DOMA is unconstitutional because the first provision of the law purports to allow states to ignore each other’s legal marriages. Section 2 says: “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe,
shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship”(DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DOMA) House Bill Text FILE h3396.ih HR 3396 IH 104th CONGRESS).

Unsurprisingly, the unbelievable “War President” of the United States, George W. Bush, said, “”Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,” Bush said. “If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.” On the contrary, marriage is the oldest contract, and it occurs everywhere around the world. Therefore, marriage, same-sex or otherwise, is not “gravely immoral” and does go against “moral law,” “natural” or otherwise.

The second provision of the DOMA law, Section 3, defines marriage for the purposes of all federal laws and programs as a “union between one man and one woman.” The provision states:
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

This is the first time in U.S. history that the Federal government adopted a definition of marriage of any kind and until now, the Federal government has always accepted state definitions of marriage for Federal law. In fact, DOMA has the effect of treating all lesbian and gay couples as strangers under Federal laws by denying them such basic considerations as: bereavement or sick leave to take care of a partner or a partner’s child; pension or social security continuation when a partner dies; the ability to keep a jointly owned home if a partner goes on Medicaid, dies, or becomes sick; joint tax returns and exemptions for primary relationships on estate taxes; veteran’s discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; immigration and residency for partners from other countries. However, this creates an unworkable set of legal and logistical problems in determining estates, taxes, securities, property, debt, and insurance (ACLU BACKGROUND BRIEFING: Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Ban February 1997). Thus, it seems gay marriage does not “go too far”, and it is not “way out of line”.

The state provision of DOMA directly violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution (Article IV, Section 1), which provides that the court judgments of one state shall be recognized as valid in other states. This Clause goes on to say, “Full Faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof”” (ACLU BACKGROUND BRIEFING: Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Ban February 1997). Therefore, it appears that California Proposition 22 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act and Senator Frist’s Constitutional Amendment are unconstitutional and completely out of line within the bounds of US Constitutional law.

The “state law” part of DOMA violates a homosexual couples their right to travel, which violates another cornerstone principle of the Constitution: the right to travel, temporarily or permanently from state to state. And so by allowing states to ignore the legal marriages of lesbian and gay couples, DOMA creates the absurd scenario of having a couple’s marital status depend on the state in which they happen to be at any given moment in time because DOMA “state law” forces people who are transferred for work, or who want to relocate near family, into the unfair position of having to choose between their legal marriage and their career or family. Therefore, DOMA prevents homosexual couples from traveling through certain states to avoid the risk of being treated as strangers in an emergency or a crisis.

DOMA violates equal protection for homosexual partners. The entire law (both the state and the federal law sections) violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection by creating a second-class status for legally married same-sex couples, and denies them all the responsibilities and respect other married couples enjoy. In short, these laws do nothing to “defend” marriages; but serve only to attacks lesbian and gay Americans (ACLU BACKGROUND BRIEFING: Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Ban February 1997). Thus, it seems that arguments against same-sex marriage are not about “a fair-minded person’s exercise of freedom of conscience in support of traditional marriage.”

On the contrary, it is about hatred, bigotry, discrimination or extremism towards homosexual partners and their families. Therefore, DOMA and California’s Proposition 22 do not affirm the “the irreplaceable role of marriage between men and women in our society. ” In short, they are unnecessary and offensive measures that violate several core principles of our Constitution. Advocates of the Protection of Marriage Initiative say that “such initiatives send a clear and positive message to California’s children about the future of families”, but historical and cross-cultural studies of the family offer many different family patterns.

According to the New York Times and only three days after the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws, the Senate majority leader Bill Frist stated that he would “absolutely” support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the United States. Unsurprisingly, Frist said, “I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between what is traditionally in our Western values been defined as between a man and a woman,” Senator Frist, Republican of Tennessee, told ABC’s This Week despite the fact that the high court on Thursday overturned a Texas law that had banned sex between homosexuals in a private home, saying the prohibition violated the defendants’ privacy rights under the Constitution. However, the constitutional amendment, which was drafted by Republicans before the Supreme Court’s decision, defines marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, a proposal that would require approval by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states to become part of the Constitution.

It is important for humankind to understand that for what is considered “normal” or “natural” in our culture and society may not be “normal” or “natural” in other cultures and societies. Thus, it seems that this cannot be and ought not be used as a standard for measuring or assessing a definition or even the future of the family, nuclear or otherwise. Denunciation from some conservative voices assert that only by nature and divine will can relationships between men be considered “natural;” they say this sends a clear and positive message to California’s children about the future of families. But these voices deny our children historical and cross-cultural studies of the family around the world, which offer many different family patterns. Therefore, it appears that the real motivation behind these laws is to score political points by singling out lesbian and gay Americans. However, the true issue here is that of transfer of wealth, and not, “the nature or divine will of relationships between only men and women.”

Unsurprisingly, marriage, in the traditional sense, is undergoing change, and so it seems that we ought to look at the way the people of State of Vermont solved this problem in that they legalized “Civil Unions” overwhelmingly.

Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. Canada’s Liberal government announced two weeks ago that it would enact similar legislation soon. Thus, it seems that our worldview ought to be in-line with the State of Vermont’s historic gay union legislation since California initiatives and US Federal Acts are completely out of line within the bounds of US Constitutional law in that they directly violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution; they violate a same-sex couple’s right to travel, and they violate equal protection for homosexual partners. Therefore, it appears that we ought to dispel the misinformation by Pope John Paul II that gay marriage is “gravely immoral, and it appears that we ought to disobey the unbelievable President George W. Bush who is actively looking into ways to ensure that the term ”marriage” would apply only to unions between men and women.

Here-in lies the moral dilemmas of the day: Why the unbelievable President of the United States of America looking into ways to deny equal rights to Gay and Lesbian People as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Why then is the Massachusetts State Legislature of America looking into ways to deny equal rights to Gay and Lesbian People as an amendment to their State Constitution?

It is important that the American People, Gay and Lesbian alike, understand that we were once told that “you will get your freedom by letting your enemy know that you will do anything to get your freedom and then you will get your freedom and equality. In fact, this is the only way you will get your freedom and equality. But when you get that kind of attitude they will label you as a “crazy Negroes” or they will just call you “crazy ni—er” because they don’t say Negroes or they call you “extremist”, or a “subversive” or a “radical” and/even “gravely immoral.” But when you stay radical long enough and get enough people to like you, you will get your freedom and equality so we say to you, the American People, do not run around here trying to make friends with somebody who is depriving you of your rights, because they are not your friends. No! Rather, they are your enemies and we must confront them, disobey them and treat them like that and we will get our freedom and equality. Then, after we finally get our freedom and equality, our enemies will respect us and we say that with no hate because we do not have hate. We have no hate at all.”

Please know that homosexual partners are being denied equal rights
under the U.S. Constitution However, legalizing gay marriages will provide a
way for same-sex couples to deal with important problems such
as the transfers of their own wealth. Now, isn’t it time to legalize gay marriage
so that homosexual partners can finally gain equal rights under the U.S.
Constitution?

In sum, we ask you to please not consider legislation that denies
homosexual partners their equal rights or grants them inferior rights such as Civil
unions, which do not grant couples most of the rights of state civil marriages,
except the name; However, civil unions do not provide any of the federal
benefits of marriage, such as Social Security benefits granted to heterosexual
partners.

In conclusion, since considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage would be an extremist piece of legislation, and since the far right and/or neo-conservative branch of government supports such a constitutional amendment, it ought not be considered by the good people of Massachusetts. Rather, we encourage you to disobey the neo-conservative movement by upholding what the high court of Massachusetts ruled when considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage: “…A rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional…”

We thank you for your time and attention.

Peace, Love and Understanding,
Chief 2 Tochtli 10 Tochtli-Chief 2 Rabbit 10 Rabbit
First World Native American Indian Confederacy
(North, East, West, Central and South Native American Indians)

Cc: Honorable Heads of State
Cc: Honorable Members the US Senate
Cc: Members of the Media
Cc: World Council of Indigenous Peoples
Cc: Native American Public Television Communications
Cc: United Nations
Cc: World Health Organization

~~~~~~~~
This message contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
~~~~~~~~

Posted by: 2 Tochtli 10 Tochtli at February 20, 2004 10:28 PM

Dear Mr. Nader:

I am a great supporter of environmental causes, and have followed your career to save us corporate giants who would lay our planet in ruins.

However, for the election of 2004 I IMPLORE you NOT to run for president! We need to defeat Bush, no matter what it takes. One of the things it will take is for you NOT to be in the race.

No matter who the Democratic candidate is, he (or she) is going to need every one of our votes. All of us who have the same concerns about our planet as you do.

As you know, probably better than the rest of us, Bush has been a disaster on environmental, special interest, and other issues. We’ve alienated our friends around the world; we’ve acted like the cowboy (dumb one at that) who is responsible to no one in the international community. I’m sure you have a list that almost is unending on what havoc Bush and his cronies have caused.

Another 4 years. Please, no way.

I have to urge you to use your important resources to defeat him. Your candidacy, however noble in continuing the fight is, just is NOT the thing to do in this crucial election. I fear what will happen if Bush is re-elected. You must also.

As a bit of background on me that may assist you that I’m sincere in my request, I am a Berkeley grad from the 1960s. I have advanced degrees in Economics from Berkeley. My general philosophy is libertarian, but that means to me that individuals should not do harm to others. I haven’t been very active politically, except I was an ardent supporter of defeating Nixon in 1972.

It is with great respect for you and your good works that I write this email to you.

Sincerely yours,
Myrna Smoot

Posted by: Myrna Smoot at February 21, 2004 09:31 AM

If Ralph nader runs, it will be with the full knowledge that he is assisting the Bush cause. There is no protest to be gained. So it boils down to why? 1) he is paid off by the Bushes. 2) He is desperate for attention, as he has been falling off the radar 3) Ego 4) He´s sick. Anyone else? All of you that are in support have the same ills. Logic is on my side. Those of you that are pleading for Ralph not to run, don´t worry, the majority of Americans are not stupid, they know the score. Ralph will not be able to massage his ego this time. He won´t get nothing but humiliation and ridicule if he trys. Better to throw his support behind what can win.

Posted by: Steven Mcroy at February 21, 2004 12:23 PM

A Canadian friend asked me last night…How much do you think Bush is paying Nader? I hadn’t really thought that but now that it is mentioned, why else? Can it simply be the enormous ego of Ralph? Ralph’s secret wish to see Bush re-elected? Where was he when all others were out there working hard? Now we await a pronouncement from on high. How very Bush-like!
Stay in your luxurious home Ralph.

Posted by: RA Mendes at February 21, 2004 02:47 PM

Mr. Nader: Please do not run in this presidential election. We’ll never know if Gore would have been a good president but most would agree that if he had won the election the environment would be better protected, the wealthiest Americans would be paying higher taxes, the rest of the world would have more respect for the US, and thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of US troops who lost their lives in Bush’s war would be alive today. If you run again you will not be advancing your causes- most Americans will be so angry at you for putting Bush in office for another four years that you will be completely discredited. Run for senate! Or come to California and run for governer!

Posted by: Fran Moon at February 21, 2004 04:22 PM

God, if we wanted someone like Ralph this time around, Dennis Kucinich would be getting votes. I voted for Nader last time around because I’m a Californian and we could spare some votes, but jeez louise, you guys would have to be morons to cast your votes against the democrats this year. It’s just not worth it to make a statement. Bush has to go now and maybe in eight years after Kerry or Edwards, after the deficit is back on track, then we can start to think about going green again, but not this November. Ralph, get lost you rotten egomaniac. I love you, but this is a shame that you are running.

Posted by: Casey McKinney at February 21, 2004 04:42 PM

Although I believe in the things you stand for, please Mr. Nader, do not run. You virtually put George Bush into office in the last election and this must not happen again. You may not agree entirely with the Democratic nominee but you surely must acknowledge that Al Gore would have been infinitely preferable to George Bush. Give your support to the Democratic nominee and then work to achieve the changes you would like to see made.

Posted by: Alison Wieman at February 21, 2004 05:24 PM

I don’t believe for a minute that Ralph Nader is responsible for Bush being elected. Most of the Nader supporters I know are like me in that they vote on principle or they stay home. If Ralph had not been on the ballot in 2000 I would not have voted for Bush Lite, ie, Al Gore ! Now that Dean is out of it it looks like the same old same old to me with Kerry and or Edwards, neither of whom hold any appeal to me. I hope Ralph says yes tommorrow. I believe that he will do better this time around and maybe even get into the debates like Perot did in 1992. If we are ever to turn this nation around we need to take charge rather than siting back and letting things play out as useuall. I mean we had eight years of Clinton and now four years of Bush has it really mattered, no not in my estimation. If an independent run by Ralph can garner a better showing every four years for the next three or four election cycles then by 2020 we may indeed se truely progressive policyies implemented by real progressives not the insidious status quo that we have had for the last 20 years. I say Run Ralph Run.

Posted by: Doug Verde at February 21, 2004 11:48 PM

Nader is on an ego trip with absolutely no chance ow winning. I suspect he has some monetary
arrangement with a few fat cat Republicans.
There is no other rational for his running

Posted by: Dan Gray at February 22, 2004 10:13 AM

Mr.Nader,

I am grateful for your advocacy of working men & women. We are the lifeblood of the American dream.

I am glad you are always on hand to force the 2 dominant parties to discuss certain issues they would otherwise avoid. You do perform a service when you keep certain issues at the forefront.

I would however ask you to reconsider your decision to run for President.

Realistically, you won’t get elected. You will be a “spoiler” at best. You will deny more votes from the Democrats than the Republicans.

In 2000 you told Americans there wasn’t a significant difference between the 2 major candidates…you claimed to offer the only real choice.

Well, the last 3 years have shown us the difference between Gore & Bush:
Jobs sent overseas. Environmental exploitation. Corporate greed. Questionable intelligence making the case for war. Hundreds of American lives lost in Iraq (not to mention equally valuable non-American lives). $87 Billion from U.S. taxpayers to re-build Iraq…but not enough money to build schools & hospitals in the U.S. If an American kid wants Bush to help him get school books, his best bet is to attend Baghdad High School.

—-and you still think there’s NO DIFFERENCE ???

The vast majority of your 2000 votes came at the expense of Gore. With those votes, Gore would have won New Hampshire and Florida. Just one of those states would have changed the course of history for the last 3 years. Can your conscience endure being responsible for another 4 years of Bush?

Please re-consider your decision to run in 2004. There are many ways for you to keep your issues front and center without condemning us all to another 4 years of Bush.

Posted by: Ralph at February 22, 2004 11:28 AM

Doug Verde, open your eyes! In Florida Nader got over 97,000 votes. Exit polls showed that roughly 30% of those voters would have, like you, “stayed home” in a non-Nader race. Of the remaining 70%, about 70% said they would have voted for Gore, giving him a 27,000 vote plurality, Florida’s 25 electoral votes, and the White House.

I believe, and fervently hope, that backlash against Nader for already giving us four years of Bush will result in far FEWER votes for him this time around, and that it will effectively be the end of Ralph in national politics. Unfortunely, in the long run, it will hurt ALL 3rd party candidacies.

Nader’s decision to run shows that he is a hypocrite who cares less about the good of the country than about having a national podium. You can be sure that there’s a lot of glee in the White House this afternoon!

Posted by: T.J. at February 22, 2004 11:38 AM

Nader is on a supreme ego trip. He knows that he as 0% chance of winning and yet he is still going to run. Is he that pathetic that he needs some trophey votes to keep him happy for the rest of his lonely days? On paper he stands for all things anti-Bush, but his actions promote the opposite. He is either a closet Bush-supporter, or a selfish egomaniac.

Posted by: Alexa at February 22, 2004 11:47 AM

Mr. Nader at fault for 2000 election is as stupid as saying the player who missed the tackle at the end of a game allowing a game winning TD is at fault for loosing the game. How many other chances did the team loose that would have won it? Maybe the game plan needed more thought. Gore lost it, a incumbant VP with a good economy should win. Get over it Gore blew it.

Posted by: Rick Robson at February 22, 2004 12:08 PM

Ralph don’t run. A vote for you is a vote for George Bush. You are filled with ideas about the way things “should be,” we have to deal with the way they are. Another four years of George Bush…when he no longer needs to work toward reelection…will be devastating to this country.

Please don’t run.

Posted by: Kathleen at February 22, 2004 12:09 PM

First time I saw Ralph Nader must have been 20 +yrs ago, and I knew then he was the man to lead this country, I believe it today more than ever, anyone with half a brain would also see it too. but if you buy into the lies of the two party system we will continue to loose our country of for the people, by the people,and of the people, if it isn’t already lost. PLEASE; check Nader out you won’t be disapointed. he is the real thing, he has solutions and if you don’t care then you are part of the problem.

Posted by: J. L. Austin at February 22, 2004 01:04 PM

You were the hero of my generation. Now you have become a narrcisist interested only in your own ability to make an impact. Yes, we need more voices in our government. Yes, the Demoncrats enabled Bush’s policies. Yes, we have become a corporate oligarchy. But the difference between the two parties is greater than the difference between a D- and a D+. The quality of life for homosexuals, the tax breaks given to the monied, the killing of innocent Iraqis, along with numerous other issues can be affected positively by Democrats. There are more effective ways to change this country than by being complicitous in putting Bush back in office for another four years. You say you are working to change the complexion of Congress. Good - put your considerable energies in that direction rather than working along with the Replicans and Bush’s radically conservative administration to make sure they remain in charge of the executive branch. I live in Florida and am a popular teacher at the University of South Florida. I will make sure that all my students in this very large university are aware of your ego-driven campaign. You have lost my respect and that of many of my generation who once adored you.

Stephanie Moss
Department of English
University of South Florida

Posted by: stephanie Moss at February 22, 2004 02:33 PM

Rick Robson: so Gore didn’t run the best possible race, but clearly the Nader votes in FL cheated Al of a victory here, and thus the presidency. (See http://www.mikehersh.com/Did_Nader_Help_or_Hurt_Al_Gore.shtml) To use your sports analogy, it’s as if Trainer Nader came in from the sidelines and disabled a couple of Gore’s offensive linemen for the last quarter.

So maybe Gore wouldn’t have made the best possible president … but a cockroach would have been better than Bush!! Watch him blame Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and the CIA’s “bad intelligence” for the Iraq fiasco and try to weasel out from taking responsibility for a course of action that he himself had planned 20 months before 9/11.

If Nader isn’t already taking payola from the GOP, you can be sure that a lot of under-the-table support for his campaign will come from them.

Posted by: sorrythatmynameisGeorge at February 22, 2004 03:10 PM

It wouldn’t surprise me one bit to learn that a lot of the “Go Nader” chants expressed here are really from Bush backers!

Posted by: Sam at February 22, 2004 03:27 PM

Clearly, Bush would have lost a non-Nader race in 2000. But just as clearly we can’t, and SHOULDN‘T “get over it” if there’s any chance that it will happen again. PLEEEEEEASE, you Nader fans, don’t back him JUST this year! There will enough Republicans helping him anyway.

Posted by: Tom Murphy at February 22, 2004 03:59 PM

We’ll make you a deal Naderites: help us to get rid of Bush for voting for whichever Dem gets the nomination and in four years we’ll give you back a country that’s still worth being president OF!

Posted by: Dave at February 22, 2004 05:51 PM

Hey, loser, if your name is Ralph Nader, quit this gig. You have a better chance at becoming President of the UAE than this country.

Posted by: GeoSquirrel at February 22, 2004 06:48 PM

Hey, loser, if your name is Ralph Nader, quit this gig. You have a better chance at becoming President of the UAE than this country.

Posted by: GeoSquirrel at February 22, 2004 06:49 PM

RE Jack’s post 2/9 — I know how you feel, but what happened to democracy? I’m sick to death of ALWAYS being forced to choose the lesser of two evils — been doing that for 30+ years, and I can’t say things have improved over the long run, even when my candidate won. You said in your comment: “The most important thing to do this year is get the anti-environment, pro-war, pro-corrupt-business Bush OUT of office.” That IS important. But it isn’t worth putting in another willing-to-sacrifice the environment, too timid to just END the war, just-as-beholden-to-the-corrupt-corporate-money-machine-as-anyone-else politico just because he has a different line of patter. You KNOW Kerry (or whoever) will sell out. Remember Clinton? As someone said earlier in these posts, “Vote with conscience, not cold feet.”

Posted by: BobH at February 22, 2004 08:25 PM

I agree. I, too, am tired of the lesser-of-evils as the only choice. I think that most intelligent people agree that it is very sad that American politics has gotten so dependent on money, and hence so intertwined with special interests that provide that money.

Dean’s attempt to break that link using just internet donations and armies of volunteers was a great idea, but fizzled because large numbers of Democrats just didn’t believe he could beat Bush.

Of course Nader, with far fewer volunteers, much less money, and no party backing has no hope of being elected. He makes me think of Don Quixote, a knight only in his own mind, off tilting at windmills! If he makes any impact this year it will again be as a spoiler for the Democratic candidate.

It would be far more productive for Nader to get himself elected to the Senate and work on changing the electoral college system of winner-take-all in each state that so effectively blocks 3rd party candidates for president. I guess maybe Ralph feels that he doesn’t have enough years left to accomplish anything along those lines.

I hope he doesn’t go down in history as the man who gave us 8 years of GeeDubya. MY conscience tells me that I shouldn’t chance contributing to that tragedy, and will therefore once again, sadly, vote for the lesser-of-evils Democrat.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2004 10:26 PM

You need to stop. You’re wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: K. Jones at February 22, 2004 10:36 PM

Dear Ralph, Thanks for all the support. Four more years!
Dubya

Posted by: G. W. Bush at February 22, 2004 10:41 PM

Yes, Ralph, take on an achievable, positive, productive goal - run for the Senate and work on campaign finance reform.

Posted by: Charles R. at February 23, 2004 08:33 AM

If Nader wants to offer an alternative to Bush that he feels the American people actually want (that is what democracy is, isn’t it?), then he should be running in the Democratic primaries. He’s not doing that because he would lose, and he knows it. He even commented that Dean’s “strategy” of running in the primaries hurt Dean’s chances of winning.

The task of defeating Bush belongs to the voters. People who vote for Nader (unless he polls at 50% against Bush — unlikely with his platform), will be voting for Bush and they know it. If they do it again, well, then we deserve what we get, don’t we? Then clearly, we are just not bright enough as a people to have anyone but Bush in office.

And if it happens, I plan on leaving the country, because I’m not happy with the gene pool. :>

Posted by: Sue at February 23, 2004 12:02 PM

To J.L.Austin, 2/22: So let’s say I “check out” Nader and agree he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. So what? It would take a miracle for him to get elected, and a miracle-to-the-miracle-power for him to accomplish anything with virtually all of Congress against him. Oh, and most of the Supreme Court too. Give up!

Posted by: Joe K. at February 23, 2004 01:09 PM

Though a republican., I voted against Bush in 2000 and willl again in 04. Every person who voted Nader in 2000 helped put Bush in office. I have ceased giving to any organization who backed Nader before, and have encouraged and continue to encourage friends and acquaintances to do the same. I would ask Nader and all of his proponents to think of all the innocent Iraqis and all of our soldiers that have died or been maimed; the damage to our budget and debt that will be paid by our children; the failure to, and the reduction of, help to our needy and the environment. They then need to admit that they, by voting by ego rather than validity, caused that all to happen and that they must not let it happen again. Insanity is to continue doing the same wrong thing while expecting a different and better result.

Posted by: Dick G. at February 23, 2004 02:39 PM

Need to know more about Nader? Try “Ralph Nader’s Skeleton Closet” in Google.

Posted by: dick g. at February 23, 2004 04:22 PM

Well, maybe not EVERY vote for Nader was a vote for Bush in 2000, but that was definitely the case in Florida and New Hampshire. (Even NH’s puny 4 electoral votes would have changed a 271/266 Bush “win” into a 267/270 loss.) The problem is, this time around it could happen in YOUR state, and YOUR vote for Nader is the one that re-elects Bush.

Just the fact that Nader is running, even if he gets NO votes, will impact the Dems more, simply because Bush’s massive bankroll can better stand the expense of running rebuttals to Nader’s attacks, even if they are leveled equally at both major parties.

Any way you cut it, Nader’s candidacy could give us the 4 more years of the worst president in our lifetimes … even those of us who survived Nixon.

Posted by: Joe K. at February 23, 2004 06:07 PM

Here are three (out of many) questions:
1) Will Kerry pull American troops out of Iraq?
2) Will Kerry end the Patriot Act?
3) How will Kerry deal with America’s huge
debt?

A Nader campaign will help push the political discussion away from the right and towards the centre. In Canada, for instance, one of the reasons why the Liberal Government (several decades ago) were able to push forward certain social policies (like medicare) was because of the popularity of the left wing NDP opposition (which was never voted into power).

In America today, we have seen the ascendancy of extreme right wing conservatives. They are so extreme that they would not even give an inch (-not even a tenth of an inch!) to the social and democratic values of individuals like yourselves (not even a cent to the poor!). Indeed, the shift is so great, that it is not clear that a Democratic presidency will move things back to the centre. To combat this, we need people like Ralph Nader who will uphold the values that we so cherish. In the process, the political spectrum will be shifted more towards the centre (that is, leftwards)

The Democrats will realize, that if they want to survive, then they will have to keep their promises.

If you always give in, then you’ll be stepped on all the time.

Posted by: IHatePeopleButICan'tStandThis at February 23, 2004 06:53 PM

There is only ONE question this year: does Bush deserve re-election for his job performance?

Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2004 07:39 PM

When I go to votenader.com, I’m always disconnected from the internet. Bush or Nader’s supporters?
What I wanted to communicate to Mr. Nader is that although I would vote for him before all other candidates, that unfortunately not a majority of people feel as strongly about environmental issues as I do, and therefore his candidacy is going to mean that Bush is going to prevail; that no strong green candidate can prevail, but that if Mr. Nader were not running against a much more moderate green than Bush, then a more green-friendly democrat would stand a chance against Bush.
I would like to make a plea to Mr. Nader to not run, so that at least we have a chance to elect a president who is not quite so anti-environment and stupid will be our leader.
Yes, it should be that the most informed and intellectual candidate is the one who will be our leader - in that case, Mr. Nader. Buy we all know that this scenario is not the case, so we must be pragmatic; let us elect the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: lin at February 23, 2004 09:04 PM

Mr. Joe K., I don’t know where you were during the first two years of Clinton’s term but the Democrats in Congress were punished severely for Clinton’s “left wing” agenda. He moved to the center because to do otherwise would have been political suicide not only for himself but for his party.

If the country is moving toward the right, unfortunately, in a democracy, policies will go the same way. Whether you want them to or not. Right wing voters are reactionary — that is, they punish politicians that go against their viewpoints by voting for more extreme candidates, and they vote in droves.

Putting a liberal third candidate on the ballot that will divide the party and discourage liberal voters from turning out, or worse yet, encourage them to cast symbolic votes for a candidate that cannot win will only skew the demographic and confuse politicians on what the mandate actually is.

And let me remind you that it was Nader’s bid that allowed this super right wing voice to make it to the executive branch in the first place. It’s their time, and Nader is partially to blame for that.

Posted by: Sue at February 24, 2004 11:02 AM

My mistake, that last post was in response to “IhatepeoplebutIcantstandthis” (nice name).

Posted by: Sue at February 24, 2004 11:04 AM

And consider this…a candidate who runs with a liberal agenda and only gets 3% of the vote, what kind of mandate is that? If anything it says that liberal policies should represent even less of the Democratic agenda.

Posted by: sk at February 24, 2004 11:07 AM

IMHO Nader will have a near-zero effect on this election, except maybe with the 18 to 22 year olds who don’t know any better yet (e.g. Deaniacs), and with residents of fantasyland who post claims here that he can “win”, or in any way influence the policies of either of the two men who WILL win.

Posted by: Paul S. at February 24, 2004 01:27 PM

ATTN.: Excellencies, Honorable Heads of State, Honorable Members of the U.S. Senate and Congress, Brothers and Sisters

RE: Culture Wars: Banning Gay Marriage. The arc of the moral universe is long and bends toward justice.

At Issue: Vietnam-era military record and moreover, the missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. universal health care, rising poverty, the growing number of unemployed people and environment

Dear Excellencies, Honorable Heads of State, Honorable Members of the U.S. Senate and Congress, Brothers and Sisters:

Our unbelievable “War President” George W. Bush, said, “”Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,” Bush said. “If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.” On the contrary, marriage is the oldest contract, and it occurs everywhere around the world. Therefore, marriage, same-sex or otherwise, is not “gravely immoral” and does go against “moral law,” “natural” or otherwise. To the contrary, president Bush ought to reflect upon the teachings of the Honorable Martin Luther King Jr., who realized the arc of the moral universe is long and that it bends toward justice:

“Let this affirmation be our ringing cry. It will give us the courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of now way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.

Let us realize that William Cullen Bryant is right: Truth crushed to earth will rise again. Let us go out realizing that the Bible is right:

Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. This is for hope for the future, and with this faith we will be able to sing in some not too distant tomorrow with a cosmic past tense, We have overcome, we have overcome, deep in my heart, I did believe we would overcome.” (Where do we go from here?
-Martin Luther King, Jr. SCLC Presidential Address, 16 August 1967)
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/062.html

Our “compassionate conservative” president says, “activist judges and local officials” from Massachusetts to San Francisco to New Mexico were attempting to redefine marriage and “change the most fundamental institution of civilization” by allowing same-sex weddings. “On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard…” says Bush. On the contrary, the truth is that thousands of people are involved in loving relationships and having them recognized for the first time.” In fact, Peter Ragone, spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, has invited president Bush to meet with some of the couples because, as he says, “what’s happening is both lawful and loving.”

Our supremely elected president, George W. Bush says would like to give the appearance that he has softened his announcement by leaving the door open for states to legalize civil unions. However, civil unions do not grant couples most of the rights of state civil marriages except the name. Moreover, civil unions do not provide any of the federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security benefits granted to heterosexual partners. Thus, we ought not consider civil unions, as they appear to be an insufficient alternative to marriage.

The unbelievable Bush says, “banning gay marriage should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.” Here in lies our dilemma: It was then governor, George W. Bush, who had opposed legalizing civil unions when he was governor of Texas.

To that end, it appears that president Bush ought calm down, and start reflecting on being more tolerant of Equal Rights for homosexual people rather than pandering to neo-conservative supporters.

Moreover, it appears that president Bush ought to be more concerned with his own Vietnam-era military record and moreover, the missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Furthermore, it appears that president Bush ought to be more concerned with universal health care, rising poverty, the growing number of unemployed people and environmental concerns rather than use a constitutional amendment to discriminate against a group of people or a wedge issue to divide the American people.

Finally, we ought not consider legislation that denies homosexual partners their equal rights or grants them inferior rights such as Civil unions since civil unions do not grant same-sex couples most of the rights of state civil marriages, except the name. In addition, civil unions do not provide any of the federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security benefits granted to heterosexual partners.

In sum, since considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage would be an extremist piece of legislation, and since the far right or neo-conservative branch of government supports such a constitutional amendment, it ought not be considered by the good people of Massachusetts and it ought not be considered by the Honorable members of the House of Representatives and Senate. Rather, we encourage you to disobey the neo-conservative movement and our intolerant president by upholding what the high court of Massachusetts ruled when considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage: “a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.”

In conclusion, we ask you to retire our supremely elected and intolerant president, George W. Bush.

We thank you for your time and attention.

Peace, Love and Understanding,
Chief 2 Tochtli 10 Tochtli-Chief 2 Rabbit 10 Rabbit
First World Native American Indian Confederacy
(North, East, West, Central and South Native American Indians)

Cc: Honorable Heads of State
Cc: Honorable Members the US Senate
Cc: Members of the Media
Cc: World Council of Indigenous Peoples
Cc: Native American Public Television Communications
Cc: United Nations
Cc: World Health Organization

~~~~~~~~
This message contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
~~~~~~~~

Posted by: 2 Tochtli 10 Tochtli at February 25, 2004 03:50 AM

I’m guilty. I was one of the 97+ thousand who voted for Nader in 2000, partly because I liked some of his ideas (even a stopped clock is right twice a day after all) and partly as a protest against the duopoly. I now include that vote in my list of worst mistakes of my lifetime, for obvious reasons. And if anyone out there still doubts that Nader put Bush in office: without him there would not even have been a need for a FL recount, and Bush would have conceded on election night.

Posted by: meaculpa at February 25, 2004 10:36 AM

I meant to say the 97+ thousand Nader votes in FL.

Posted by: meaculpa at February 25, 2004 10:46 AM

This newspaper column by O. Ricardo Pimentel says it all:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0226pimentel26.html

If you haven’t the time to read the whole thing, here’s the 5-second synopsis:

“It’s time for Nader to recall his ego.”

“There was a time when Nader could rightly be described as a genuine American hero.”

“Nader’s decision to run again means he will richly deserve his upcoming caricaturization as a needy egoist without a shred of the conscience that he urged the rest of us to have all these many years.”

“He has urged a selflessness that it’s now quite evident he doesn’t believe really applies to him.”

“Nader glosses over the vast differences between the parties. And he totally ignores the one that should count the most: One party is running on a record that is anathema to him; the other is the more progressive on virtually any issue Nader can name.”

“If Nader were a consumer product, he would have to be recalled as defective. But he’s a candidate and perhaps the best thing is to simply refuse to buy him.”

Posted by: RightOnRicardo at February 27, 2004 10:59 AM

Why am I spending my energy telling Ralph Nader: PLEASE BACK OUT GRACEFULLY, when I should be spending my energy rallying people together against Bush? Everyday that goes by, energy and money is spent trying to convince Nader to regain his senses, instead of where it should be spent: getting Bush out of office.

You want Bush out.
I want Bush out.
Why aren’t we on the same team here?
Why are we being split already?

Look at all the posts on this side. IT’S RIDICULOUS! I bet if we were in a room together we would all be “yeah, you’re right, and blah blah” and “that’s a great idea. I tried blah, blah” BUT here we are fighting about what?!?!? Nader!

BUSH HAS ALREADY WON! (if we continue to bicker like this)

We need to unite not divide.

I can’t believe I’m spending the energy to even write this missive.

Power to you all. To Nader: I am starting to hate you almost as much as I hate Bush.

Posted by: Alastair Clarke at March 1, 2004 06:18 PM

PROTEST!! VOTE AGAINST NADER!

Posted by: SamIAm at March 2, 2004 11:39 AM

Though I agree with Ralph Naders policies, ideas and thought on running th country he has neither the foothold or the backing to do what he wishes to see done. Right now this country is based on a bi-party system, a three party race doesn’t work properly.

Nader, get into the senate, do a lot of good there… take up Wellstone’s fight and try to change the system to allow a 3-party race. Then after a few years when you have the foothold and the backing, run for president. If you have a strong resume, the system is not fighting against you and you keep up you idealistic (which are good) ideas and goals, you can get elected president and make serious changes.

Were you to be elected (a far shot) now, the changes you could make would be miniscule and you wouldn’t do anything and in 8 years you career would be over… do things the smart way, you are a smart man.

Posted by: Casey at March 5, 2004 11:10 AM

Yeah … like Clinton … a smart man who does very dumb things.

Posted by: Sally at March 7, 2004 12:17 PM

I just wanted to say that i’m so glad you’ve decided to run in this election. All of my friends and I have decided to go together to cast our votes for you in November. We are all in college and feel if anyone is going to clean this country up- it will be you. It seems that most people in the US are afraid of change. I feel sorry for them. I sure as hell dont want to live out the rest of my life in fear that everything that makes this place sexist, racist and immoral will continue. My God Bless you and this country.

Posted by: Emii at April 27, 2004 08:04 PM

I would like to know Nader’s views on the war. He would be more honest about it, perhaps. Now they are spreading a rumor around that he is gay, but that could actually bring him extra votes from the left. Both Bush and Kerry are in Yales’s Skull and Bones, and their is no way I will vote for them. I will vote for a gay person before I vote for them! Skull and Bones is a death cult.

Posted by: chris at May 1, 2004 06:33 PM

Emii: you’ll do more good for the country by not wasting the gasoline to go to the polls! Nader has NO chance of getting elected. ZIP! ZERO! ZILCH! He knows this, of course, but his super ego still makes him go out and siphon off enough otherwise Democratic votes to help keep Bush in office - a man who is diametrically oppsed to many if not most of Nader’s beliefs. Sheer IDIOCY!

Posted by: samiam at May 9, 2004 05:50 PM

I will not vote for Kerry or Bush. But I will Vote for Nador.

Nuff said!

Posted by: TK at May 23, 2004 11:40 PM

I strongly support Ralph Nader running in 2004, mainly because he speaks the truth on the 2 party system, Republicans and Democrats are basically the same party, they both are representatives of Greed and Corrporate Power. Ralph Nader is acctually working to make a difference for America

Nader/LaDuke 2004

Posted by: Kurt at May 31, 2004 06:17 PM

Please don’t do it! Don’t run! I don’t doubt your thoughts and intentions are good. But think about a fight over a sweet granny, a mactinosh and a california sweet naval. We’ll divide the apple vote while the orange retains solidarity.
AT best you can start a grass roots organization that apeals to a large neglected voting group. US Single mothers and child support enforcement. There are more of us combined than any other minority group. No we are not all TANF collecting work the system baby producing idiots. Many of us are simply unable to have access to improving ourselves due to the apathy regarding CSE and the decreases in grants for bettering ourselves.
I’m afraid if Dubya wins again, we are all heading north across the border. I might get there early to get my RE license transfered and catch the wave of liberals bombarding the market soley motivated by their disgust with dubya.
You won’t make us go through this again with GWB will ya?

Single mom-
a whole slew of us voting for Kerry.

Posted by: singlemom at June 8, 2004 03:59 AM

Any chance of a lawsuit in Texas or elsewhere to open up state ballots to 3rd and 4th party candidates?
Without balancing candidates on the right major candidates on the left like Nader do weaken mainstream Democrats. If there had been a right wing candidate like Buchanan in 2000 Bush could have lost votes to the extreme right and Gore might have won.
A California style free for all might be too much excitement for most of us, but no one there has complained about judges, butterfly ballots or hanging chads.

Posted by: Dennis at June 24, 2004 07:35 AM

I’ve got news for you Dennis: in 2000 Pat Buchanan collected 448,895 votes nationwide, 17,484 in FL alone. But Nader cut into Gore’s votes far more than Buchanan did Bush’s. In FL, exit polls showed that about 70% of Nader’s 97,488 voters would have voted for Gore if Nader had not run. A 40% plurality of 97,488 votes would have given Gore an unequivocal win here. Therefore, NADER GAVE US BUSH!

Posted by: wakeUPyouIDIOTS at June 24, 2004 08:33 PM

Mr. Nader:
Now that you are soliciting support of right wing Republicans in Oregon and Arizona, it is time to go all the way.
I you really want to get on the 2004 presidential ballot in a sufficient number of states, you absolutely need to garner support from the large corporations like tobacco, GM, Ford, the Japanese/American auto industry,thr insuramce companies, especially the health sector, the drug companies, the oil industry, the mining industry, the logging companies, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, all the right wing Republican fundamentalist Christian sects,the Roman Catholic Church and the anti-abortion groups all over the country, pronounce your advocacy of the great advantage to free global trade by expansion of American corporation mergers, and seek support from all the wealthy folks who have contributed so handsomely to the George W. Bush campaign.
And stop Driving around in that rattle trap you call a car. Get yourself a new HumVee and pal around with Arnold in California; establish yoursef some personal cool.
And, oh yes, get yourself some facial surgery and ask Arnold for some of his designer steroids to bulk up your muscles. You gotta look the part !
If you can manage to suck away enough of Bush’s support to qualify, he just might dump that foul mouth Cheney and ask an eager beaver, consistent, straight shooter like you to be his new V.P. on the 2004 Bush ticket. It would be a glorious combo and sweep the election.
Go,go, go for it, Ralph ! !

Posted by: Francis Scalzi at June 28, 2004 12:20 PM

Nader doesn’t give a damn about what’s best for the country, because if he did he would withdraw his own candidacy and work for the election of Kerry. Nader cares only about Nader.

Posted by: thewayitis at July 2, 2004 09:21 PM

Democrats are suppressing freedom of speech to get Kerry, a Bonesman, elected. Bush got us stuck in Iraq, and all Kerry will do is keep spending billions on the military until western oil companies gain access to more foreign lands. He stood by like other Democratic Congressman while tax cuts to the wealthy were passed. There is no Democratic chorus of opposition to the revival of “trickle down economics”. How can angry Kerry supporters expect change if he is elected? All the corrupted Congressman that have sold out the interests of Americans in favor of corporate cronies that give them money are still in power. Let Nader speak the truth as the majority of Americans are still plugged into The Matrix.

Middle class Americans need a new party that can vote for candidates that pledge to follow a party platform that benefits Americans, not globalized corporations. The current elitists have successfully polarized Americans with wedge issues that divide the middle class in half into Democratic and Republican special interests. This is classic Machiavellianism 101 - “divide and conquer” strategy.

Posted by: heyDude at July 3, 2004 05:30 PM

If the country doesn’t elect Kerry then it will elect Bush. There are no other possibilities. Which would you Nader supporters be less unhappy under?

Posted by: KeepItSimpleStupid at July 4, 2004 11:16 AM