After a brief look at this morning's Big O, I would not be surprised if a bunch of conservatives show up tomorrow at Benson for Ralph's "convention" to push him over the 1,000 mark.

Here's the Deal:

I voted for Bush in 2000. However, I am currently disgusted with the way he is running this country. And, at this point, I refuse to vote for him in 2004.

Alternatively, I am not going to vote for Kerry, just because he's the anti-Bush. What does Kerry stand for? What are his positions? How will he change the direction this country is headed?
I don't know. And I don't think anyone knows. And it bothers me that Kerry and the Democratic Party think they don't have to take a position on anything, just because Bush is imploding.

The Democratic party needs to sack up and start fighting for liberal issues, and then I'll vote Kerry. As horrendous of a job as Bush has done. At least he believes in something and stands for something. And I've gotta be honest, I admire that about him.

Anyway, I am voting for Nadar. At least I know what he stands for.

even if I had no idea what Kerry stood for or what kind of character he has, I would still not vote for Nader as I know what Bush is like.

Thank you, Catalyst. Godspeed. I hope there are more like you.

Brett --

There are.

Lex.

Nader only needs 1,000 signatures?! That's it?! I thought the last time he was in town he failed to get on the ballot because he needed 10,000.

If his supporters can't get a thousand people to sign simply by hanging around PSU and Fred Meyer's..... that's just sad.

He needs the 1000 people who sign to be in the same place at the same time, acting as a nominating convention, which is why he can't have solicitors on the street gathering signatures as he would if he could be nominated by a 1000-signature petition.

Catalyst,
One might reasonably argue that if you can't spell your favorite candidate's name, you might not know all that much about him.

1,000 people, same place and same time. Got it, thanks.

How many showed up at his last appearance in PDX? It was 500, right? That's not too far off, I mean, those 500 can each find a friend or two. Maybe he'll be on the ballot this time. Let the good times roll!

Bryan, one might reasonably argue its a typo.

I sang Jack's song till about a week ago. But there are too many voters and should-be-voters who just sit all the elections out. I now think Nader's ideas (which are great) and activism is more likely to stir up greater interest in and activism all around the election than it is to "take" any of Kerry's votes (which aren't Kerry's votes until he gets them, anyway).

I want Nader on the ballot and I especially want him in the debates -- the ones the League of Women Voters refuses to sponsor anymore as they are naught but a party-controlled farce (for the parties, not the populace).

And I'll be at Benson tomorrow afternoon. Between the believers, the haters and the manipulators, who'd wanna miss a great spectacle like that!

Ahhhhhh but when the shoe was on the other political foot....when Perot was running.......people signed up for him also. It's a free country,right? ..freedom of expression, right? The right to choose? Right?

Of course!

I feel bad for the dems....only because they dont know how to handle the same thing they have done to the republicans all these years....

The room may end up filled with Dems and Repubs and no Greens at this point. In additional to right-wing groups urging members to go and sign, local Dems are pushing members to get into the room and not sign.

Well... I've been supportive of Nader's right to run this year. And I've been very turned off by Dems squeeling about how Nader was responsible for Gore's loss in 2000 and that he might play the same role this election. The fact of the matter is that Nader can only vote for himself once.

That said... by openly stating that he's not the least bit bothered by these attempts by blatently conservative groups to hurt Kerry by supporting Nader... coupled with his oft-repeated, intellectually bankrupt arguement that his candidacy would pull more votes away from Bush then it would from Kerry - an objectively false assertion - I now see Nader's candidacy as a farce built on nothing more substantial than his own substantial ego. He of course has every right in the world to run for whatever reasons he wants. But, I no longer respect him.

Context: I voted for Nader in 2000. Not because I wanted him to be President, though. Rather I voted for him because I underestimated the damage that Bush was capable of inflicting, as well as because I saw the choice between Gore and Bush as a choice between tweedledee and tweedledum. My intention was to write in the only candidate that I truly wanted to be my next President - Sen. John McCain. But, at the last minute I decided that voting for Nader would send a stronger protest vote message... which I think history has proven to be correct.

Nader became famous for distorting automobile crash info. He's supported by the Green Party (a distortion unto themselves). Now he can't tell which real party his supporters would damage (distortion taken to 11). It looks like he's in a race with Gore. Crazy, crazy, crazy.

"I now see Nader's candidacy as a farce built on nothing more substantial than his own substantial ego."

Often said. The countervailing view would be that is is a sacrifice.

I subscribe.

But I do not subscribe to the contention that the activism will prove a net loss for Kerry & gain for Bush. Not properly played, it won't. And I'm rejecting the narrowing and intimidation as proper or even (or especially) wise play.

The Greens don't support Nader. Not officially at least.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/9020958.htm

"The room may end up filled with Dems and Repubs and no Greens at this point. In additional to right-wing groups urging members to go and sign, local Dems are pushing members to get into the room and not sign."

I was in attendance and saw plenty of Greens in the auditorium and militant Democratic Party members outside. It may be a close call as to whether the 1,000 threshold was reached. If I find out that Dem Party people subverted it to that extent, that would probably be a dealkiller for me.

I totally emphathize with -- and share -- the fear of the Bush43 Administration. But just as, in the wake of Sept. 11, we knew or were told that to lose our freedoms equated to "letting the terrorists win," so losing freedom of participation and activism is letting authoritarians win.

That may be a spectacle I'll have to watch, but not one I want to voluntarily participate in.

You guys want to know why Republicans hold all 3 branches of government? It's because right-wing Conservatives are far smarter than left-wing Liberals when it comes to politics.

Conservatives understand how to take power and they did so over several decades by infiltrating the Republican party at every level, especially the local level. They got off their asses and ran for school boards and commissions, and dogcatcher and all the other boring local elected positions until eventually they were the party. You didn't much hear Conservatives whining about "tweedledum and tweedledee" in 2000 because they are smart enough to know better. And you certainly don't see them fleeing for 3rd party candidates because they aren't stupid enough to through away their votes in some inane protest.

Some (not all) left-wing liberals on the other hand just believe that they are somehow ENTITLED to have a candidate and party that speaks to their every little fetish without actually lifting a finger to build the party from the ground up in their image. Either Gore or Kerry would have been the most environmentally-friendly President in the history of the United States. Yet how many environmentalists voted for Nader as some sort of protest vote? Who were they protesting against?

You can live in some alternate reality and dream about instant runoff voting and a lot of other stuff on Nader's fantasy platform. Fact of the matter is, nearly every item on Nader's fantasy platform either: (1) would require a Constitutional amendment to implement, or (2) is outside the jurisdiction of the executive branch. Even if he was elected he wouldn't stand a chance of getting a single item on his platform implemented. He'd be the biggest failure in Presidential history.

Instant runoff voting and abolishing the electoral college are cases in point. It's difficult enough to pass a constitutional amendment when a major party is behind it. Look at the scattered history of failed Constitutional amendments that did have the support of major parties; the ERA, balanced budget amendment, anti-gay marriage amendment, English-only amendment. I'm sure there are dozen's more. The idea that a lone wolf like Nader could get any sort of amendment through 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and 2/3rds of the States is laughable.

Clearly Nader is, or at least was, a lighting rod for voters fed up with the divide and conquer strategy that is part and parcel of the two-party system. McCain, as well as Buchanan, was also a lighting rod for those same disaffected voters and remains one still. Likewise Perot was a lighting rod for those same voters.

To dismiss as niave those who voted for Nader or those who still intend to vote for Nader is niave in itself. It entirely misses the point of why huge numbers of Nader 2000 voters said they'd not have voted at all if the choice had only been Gore v Bush.

The fact of the matter is that a substantial minority of the Nader 2000 vote came from right-of-center voters who had absolutely no reason to give a flying rodent's backside about liberal (or Conservative, for that matter) strategy. We're swing voters for a reason. Further more, neither Liberals nor Conservatives have demonstrated the ability to win elections outright with just their base voters. Like it or not, Liberals and Conservatives... Democrats and Republicans need us far more than we need them.

Personally, I'm no more interested in seeing Dems/Liberals control all three branches of government than I am in seeing GOPers/Conservatives control all three. I don't trust either Party/ideology to care one whit for what is in my best interests if they get that kind of control over the federal government.