Nader Sells Out to Swift Boat Vets

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#1
Swift Boat Donors Float Nader Some Money

By Brian Faler

Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A07


Swift Boat Veterans for Nader? A handful of donors to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an organization that has run controversial ads attacking Democrat John F. Kerry, have also given money to independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader.

Five donors, who contributed a total of $13,500 to the anti-Kerry group, also gave $7,500 to the longtime consumer advocate. That has infuriated some Democrats, who complain that Nader is taking money from supporters of not only a Republican group, but also one he has repeatedly denounced. In August, at a speech at Tulane University, Nader called the group "proxies" for the Bush campaign, which, he said, was attempting to "smear" the Democratic nominee.

"If Nader wishes to have any credibility left with progressives, he must give back all right-wing money," said Robert Brandon, co-founder of anti-Nader United Progressives for Victory, which unearthed the contributions.

The Nader camp rejected suggestions that it was hypocritical of him to accept the money -- and said the donations were evidence of its candidate's ability to appeal to voters from across the political spectrum. "Twenty-five percent of our voters are people who voted for Bush. I'm not surprised there's some overlap in funding, as well," said spokesman Kevin Zeese. "If they support us, they support us," he said. "We can still criticize their advertising campaign."

Trying to Get Everybody Into Spinning


Spinning: It's not just for pols anymore.

Both President Bush and John F. Kerry's campaigns fired-off e-mails to their supporters Tuesday, urging them to help spin this week's vice presidential debate.

"If we plan to win the election, we must fight back against their spin and make sure our friends and neighbors get the truth," Bush Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman wrote -- pretty much the same thing the Kerry camp was telling its supporters. Both campaigns urged their people to flood Web polls on the debate, write letters to newspaper editors and call talk-radio shows touting their candidate's performance. The goal? To win the battle of perceptions of who won the debate or, barring that, exceeded expectations.

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee was targeting voters who may not be on the candidates' e-mail lists. The party bought debate-themed ads on a number of newspaper Web sites that, when clicked, take viewers to a site echoing the increasingly familiar message. "Your 10 minutes of activism following the debate can make the difference," it said.

Green Party Hopeful Plans Protest


Look for a little civil disobedience at the next presidential debate.

Green Party presidential nominee David Cobb -- who, like the rest of the third-party contenders, has been barred from the event -- announced yesterday that he plans to protest their exclusion at the debate tomorrow in St. Louis.

"These so-called debates are an insult to democracy and the American people and, as a representative of the fastest-growing political party in this country, I have an obligation to try and open them up to more voices," Cobb said.

His campaign said he is prepared to be arrested.
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#4
Its disappointing to see him take their money when he wasn't even invited to the debates. I miss the good old days when Ross Perot was allowed to spew before the cameras.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#5
The difference is Ross Perot was a freakin billionare.

Are the democrats running against Bush or Nader? The dems have no credibility on this issue. If they wish to have credibility they should clean up their own political foundation.
The dems had their chance to get the repubs off the ballot in Florida and they did absolutely nothing. Their whole campaign is a miserable failure.
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#10
2-0-Sixx said:
A whopping $7,500.
That's Nader's price: what credibility does he have now? I was actually going to vote for the old guy but I dont know now. He has no dignity accepting cash from the party that largely barred him from the debates.

Why are you so in love with him?
 
Apr 25, 2002
5,500
12
38
46
#12
2-0-Sixx said:
lol, you guys seriously listen to the Dems propoganda way too much

You really don't think Nader is republican funded? I don't dislike the guy, but I do believe that republicans are backing him. He may know hes being used, he may not
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#14
My bad: Nader didnt sell out for $7k, more like $100k
____________________________________________

We almost feel pity for Ralph Nader, he's stooped so low in attempting to claim the "progressive" mantle this election. Now the news comes out - according to the Federal Election Commission and United Progressives for Victory - that Nader's accepting money from the same donors who funded the demonstrably false smear campaign propagated by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Travis Anderson, Brian Pilcher, Donald Burns, Rex Martin and Oliver Grace, who contributed $13,500 to air the baseless Swift Boat attack ads derailing John Kerry's war record in August have given $8,000 to Nader over the past few months. That's on top of the $6,000 Nader took from donors who gave $217,000 to the right-wing antitax extremists at the Club for Growth. Nader's now accepted $100,000 total from GOP donors and consultants. A record to run away from, in campaign parlance.

In addition, the Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey-backed Citizens for a Sound Economy has urged its members to help Nader get on the ballot in battleground states. The antigay Oregon Family Council made hundreds of phone calls on Nader's behalf, while the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader's signatures in their state. There are dozens of these kinds of shenanigans elsewhere.

Instead of selling his soul to corporations, Nader's making a Faustian pact with homophobic government-hating warmongers. If Nader wants to retain any credibility as a genuine progressive, he should immediately reject contributions from these right-wing groups.

"We're not afraid of being spoilers," Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese told PBS's Gwen Ifill last month. But are they concerned about accepting ammo from the forces that want to roll back the gains of the twentieth century?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?pid=1886
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#15
This is really a pathetic argument against Nader. Who are you voting for? Please don’t tell me it’s Kerry. If you’re voting Kerry and your whole defense against Nader is where certain donations came from, lol, you are a hypocrite plain and simple. You really want me to come out with who has been pumping tens of millions of dollars into the Kerry campaign? Kerry has shattered the all time fund raising record for a presidential campaign in American history. The only candidate who has raised more is Bush and that’s only by 6 million. Kerry has raised almost HALF A BILLION. HALF A BILLION! Where you think this kind of money comes from? Peaceful-law-biting citizens??? lol

If you don’t like Nader, that’s cool. But come with a better argument than who sends him free money for the campaign. The only way this argument can be valid is if you’re voting Cobb or Walt Brown, but I’m sure even they have received money from not so perfect individuals or groups.

The real issue here is whether or not Nader has an obligation to do what is in the interests of the "Swift Boat" people or whomever. You think Nader gives a fuck about these people? lol. Now look at the other hand; Kerry HAS AN OBLIGATION to do what is in the interests of the huge corporate giants which funded basically his entire campaign! That's why Kerry wouldn't dare pull out of Iraq, or offer us universal healthcare (which by the 70% of americans want). Kerry has an obligation to serve the rich and the corporate giants, while on the other hand Nader does not.
 
Jun 18, 2004
2,190
0
0
#16
And besides, it should be obvious that Nader is recieving these donations from the repubs. because the republican thinking is that Nader will be taking dem votes that would otherwise go to Kerry...they don't actually back Nader...it's all a ploy.
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#17
2-0-Sixx said:
This is really a pathetic argument against Nader. Who are you voting for? Please don’t tell me it’s Kerry. If you’re voting Kerry and your whole defense against Nader is where certain donations came from, lol, you are a hypocrite plain and simple. .
I'm voting Cobb brother but you and I know, he aint winning.
Im just putting out the facts, dont get flustered. How can you swing on Nader's nuts just because he hasn't taken as much money from special interests, he still takes it. The only reason he hasnt taken it is it hasn't been offered, everyone knows the real hypocrite wont win this election. Although I would have voted for him to solidify a third party if only he wasn't such a sack of lying shit.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#18
Yo man, that’s some real fucked up shit how you’re coming at me man. This is the 2nd time you made some gay comment about being on Nader’s “nuts” or whatever and I think since it’s coming from someone who I respected and once considered above the rest of the siccness children, the shit is real fucked up. NEVER once have I came at you sideways. Never once have I insulted you or hinted any disrespect. I’ve always respected your opinions since the day you started posting in the GOM.

Let me say a couple things, comrade:

First off, to say I am on Nader’s nuts is absolutely absurd. I am a SOCIALIST. Nader is not. I have criticized Nader on this site and I have explained in detail my reasoning for supporting his campaign. If I am on Nader’s nuts then you are on Cobb’s nuts and so on and so on. It's very childish and you should rise above it.

If you notice, I never defend Nader specifically, but only the arguments themselves, which I feel have been weak ones and lack merit.

I could post articles criticizing Cobb and his campaign, but I’m not. You know why? Because those of us who are supporting the Independent Party or the Green Party etc. are ON THE SAME SIDE! We together are the ones behind the barricades facing and opposing the big giant corporations and capitalist pigs and are demanding change. We are the revolutionaries, the leftists, intellectuals, etc. All of the time and effort wasted by “leftists” and latte liberals bashing Nader and other 3rd party candidates are in fact, consciously or unconsciously, helping corporate interests!

I also want to point out that the same people who started this “Nader is in bed with the Republicans” are members of the Democratic party! (a Kerry PAC called United Progressives for Victory was set up in June by Oldaker, housed in the DC offices of Robert Brandon and Associates, whose main function is to fight Nader)

You, and many others, have been force fed propaganda which is intended to destroy Naders character in the states where the Dems were unsuccessful of removing his name from the ballot. FYI, the Dem’s literally hired thousands of lawyers whose only job was to find ways to get Nader off state ballots, and as you know were successful in a handful of states. It should be perfectly clear just how undemocratic our system is when the Democrats feel more threatened by a candidate who will probably not even receive 3% of the vote. The real priorities of both the Dems and Repubs are to keep it a two party system and to never again allow an independent to have a chance. BTW, The Center for Responsive Politics had concluded that no more than 4% of Nader funds came from Republicans. But in campaigns, as in war, truth was indeed the first victim.

While you and others can only see the small picture, there are others who see a much larger picture- a picture that illustrates the formation of a new workers party of the future. This is not just some pipedream: One of the steps taken that led to the creation of the national Green Party - out of state groups and factions that had plenty of differences with each other - was a national conference attended by 125 members of over 20 third arties ranging from the socialists and one of the last members of the American Labor Party to Greens, Libertarians and members of Perot's Reform party. As some of you will criticize on a small level, “Nader is bad, Cobb is better”, you will completely miss the opportunity to help build for the future. There is already a call upon the Deanies, Kucinichistas, Greeners, Sharptonoids, Naderites, etc. to meet at the local and state level in the coming months to begin planning such a movement.

I could go on and on, but I don’t want to bore you with broader ideas.

BTW, out of curiosity, for what reasons do you call Nader a lying sack of shit?
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#19
I apologize for coming at you sidewayz 2 0, that was just a form of speech dont be so sensitive. Believe me, its a mutual respect. I am just sincerely disappointed in Nader and maybe bash him more than I should considering he isn't as big of a target as JK or GWB. Kucinich also received some of my lashing out after he dropped out of the race. For the record, I am not a democrat influenced latte liberal, more of an independent thinker and anti-consumer. Your point is well taken, I'll stop hating on those that oppose since we should be working in alliances.

Peace.
 
Jul 10, 2002
2,180
18
0
45
#20
Of course people from the right will lobby nader, most of his major contributions come from republicans, they want him to do to Kerry, what Perot did to Bush back in '92, and its working!