The Washington Post has this lengthy article about Ralph Nader in its June 25 issue. Unfortunately, the article is mostly a re-hash of all the same points that have been written about Nader for years. There is no mention that the Post itself presented evidence in its October 22, 2004 issue, page one, that Nader was not injuring the Democratic presidential campaign in 2004. There is no mention that he is doing better with ballot access in 2008 than he was doing at this point in 2004. There is no mention that he seems likely to be the only non-major party presidential candidate who will receive primary season matching funds (unless Cynthia McKinney also qualifies). There is no mention of Nader’s very strong FEC complaint against the Democratic National Committee. That complaint charges that the Committee should have reported its extensive expenditures to keep him off the ballot in 2004 but did not do so.
Yes, I saw that. What flackery, the Post is such a mouthpiece for the Democrats. I wrote the “journalist” an email this morning and pointed out a few links rebutting and showing the inaccuracies of his hackery.
I did not send him the link to Post article. Someone should, if you haven’t already, Richard.
The Wash Post, a weird strange unresponsive ‘friend’ that ya just have to let go of. At least the reactionary, semi neocon Washington Times prints my letters. Go figure!
I thought it was a good article. First point, they did offer strong counter-arguments to the obsessive self importance of the Todd Gitlins. Second point, I’m still not impressed with his ballot access thus far, he could well fall quite short. Third point, Lyndon LaRouche and Lenora Fulani qualified for FEC matching funds, BFD!! Fourth point, I’ll give you, but its still not much.
Nader is a fraud, his unrealistic talk of getting 5% proves he’s never been interested in anything but a payday fromt he FEC going back to 2000, and his incessant clinging to the anti-corporate panacaea is perfect proof that time has passed him by. That, and only raising $150,000 so far.
That article is flawed according to the FEC Nader has raised just above $900,000.
Yes, it is generally annoying that the Nader 2000 campaign seems to have permanently implanted “5 percent” in the public mind as some sort of holy grail, with many people mistakenly believing that achieving this goal entitles a party to “matching funds” in all federal races and/or ballot access in all states.
But 5 percent for Nader this year would not result in a “payday from the FEC” for anyone, because he is not the candidate of a nationally organized political party.
It would provide a payday for Nader to establish a new party. Ross Perot did that after 1992 for the Reform Party.
Independent presidential candidates can get funding after the election if they poll 5%. John Anderson set that precedent in 1980. He got millions of dollars after the election was over, which he used to pay back the loans the banks had made to him. The banks took a chance that he would get at least 5%, and they lucked out; he got 6.7%.
Wait, you can take out loans to run for President? How does that work;is it considered a contribution or personal financing your own campaign?
Sorry – Nader will NOT be elected Prez.
Amazing that the media gives ANY attention to minor party candidates and independents — perhaps summer doldrums — need to fill up paper space.
I’ve just sent the author of the article a (very polite) email drawing his attention to the discrepancy between the funds Nader has raised and the amount reported by the FEC.
The FEC report can be found here:
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P20000527
The search function for all candidates is here:
http://fec.gov/finance/disclosure/srssea.shtml
I mean “discrepancy between the the funds the WashPost reported Nader had raised” and the amount reported by the FEC. We’ll see if they even run a correction.
The Green Party has very rightly moved on…no presidential candidates for life..plezz.
There were seveal myths in Today’s Post article, and yesterday’s Washington Times Front Page Nader article.
In the Times yesterday Mr. N. is quoted thus.”…that there is no clear next generatin of third party candidates to groom because “tthey don’t want to get their hands dirty.”
This is the same false bromide that Ralph said in 2000. False logic indeed. Shall we just list a few for fun..
Matt Gonzales the VP w/RN
David Cobb – who sought and won the Green Party nomination in 2004. Mr. Nader did NOT. And did not even bother to go to the Green Party convention.
Cynthia McKinney
Kat Swift
Kent Mesplay
Jesse Johnson
Joe Schriner
Daniel Imperato
Michael Jingosean
Bob Barr
Michael Baldwin
Another paragraph notes that RN will crash both larger party conventions. But has refused to attend (up til now) the Green Party convention in Chicago. And refused until now to debate McKinney/Barr/Baldwin.
Now to Post article
Ralph “..walked away from the Greens frustrated by party infighting)..”
Kiddies. This is politics. Politics is nonviolent infighting by it’s very nature. Ralph refused to ever join the Green Party. At any time he could have come down – and still could – come down from his high mountain…and became Party Chairman.
Taken control of the chaos, fixed it. Recruited candidates.
And for the good Lord’s sake…started gathering petition signatures in July 2007 when the window opened in 44 states..
Oh… And did we mention Ralph refused to join the Green Party, and refused to seek the nomination.
We love, honor, and respect Mr. Nader. Still, like most of us, he need look no further than in the mirror to find the cause of many problems….and ultimately the solutions.
Every Green wishes him well..
Let’s not blame the Green Party – that abstraction – that is after all just a group of dedicated regular working folks.
Ed Hennesy Says: “Daniel Imperato”
LOL.
Anyway, do we even know if Barr or McKinney have approached Nader to debate? Anyway I understand why the Greens would want Nader to help them but for better or worse he is an independent.
I’m sure some forum or another will have at least Barr and Nader debate, and possibly Barr, Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin, and that at least C-SPAN will cover it. The best chance for this roadblock to get torn down is, sadly, not OpenDebates.org but the debate that Google is thinking about having.
It looks as if the Democrats and Republicans are back on this website making their usual illogical comments. They must be very afraid of us!