View Full Version: Aw Poor Ralph Nader

Al Gore Support Center Online Forum 2008 :: A Reality Based Organization Fighting For Al Gore! > The Political Roundtable > Aw Poor Ralph Nader



Title: Aw Poor Ralph Nader


ap215 - July 2, 2004 07:13 PM (GMT)
His supporters have given up on putting his name on the ballot in Arizona. Oh well. :clap:

bluebutterfly - July 2, 2004 07:37 PM (GMT)
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

(standing ovation)

GoreLeadership - July 3, 2004 07:50 PM (GMT)
Now, now the people need to stand up and be counted adn SPEAK UP FOR AL GORE... Lets get him nominated at the convention, lets not give up- our support will go to the nominee after the convention should it be Kerry.

-GoreLeadership

GSC Admin - July 3, 2004 10:33 PM (GMT)
Seriously, I am begging all of you, to please leave Al alone. He is not going to be the nominee, nor does he want to be. The only thing that this can bring him is heat from the press and blame if John Kerry were to lose the election. I don't want that.

bluebutterfly - July 10, 2004 07:56 AM (GMT)
GOP donors funding Nader :o
Bush supporters give independent's bid a financial lift

Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Friday, July 9, 2004

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader -- still not on the ballot in a single state -- has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party, an analysis of federal records show.

Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1, 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past.

The donations from wealthy Republicans -- combined with increasingly vocal Democratic charges that they represent a stealth GOP effort to wound Democrat John Kerry -- prompted Nader's vice presidential running mate, Green Party member Peter Camejo, to suggest the consumer advocate reject the money that doesn't come from loyal Nader voters.

"If there has been a wave of these (donations), then that's something Ralph and I will have to talk about -- and about returning their money,'' he said Thursday in an interview with The Chronicle. "If you oppose the war, if you're against the Patriot Act, your money is welcome.

"But if your purpose is because you think this is going to have an electoral effect, we don't want that money. I take no money from people who disagree with us,'' Camejo said. "We're not interested in that.''

But Camejo's views differ with Nader's recent defense of the contributions.

"We have no indication that the Republicans are trying to maneuver support for us,'' he said at a recent press conference. "There are three or four major Republican donors who have contributed to my campaign. But that's because I worked with them on a number of issues. ... It's all very small, relatively small, contributions. And we like it that way.''

But the financial records show that $23,000 in checks of $1,000 or more have come from loyal Republicans. Among those who have given recently to Nader are Houston businessman Nijad Fares, who donated $200,000 to President Bush's 2000 inaugural committee; Richard J. Egan, the former ambassador to Ireland, and his wife, Pamela, who have raised more than $300,000 for Bush; Michigan developer Ghassan Saab, who has given $30,000 to the RNC since 2001; and frozen food magnate Jeno Paulucci, and his wife, Lois, who have donated $150, 000 to GOP causes since 2000 alone.

All have donated the maximum $2,000 to Nader's campaign since April, records show.

Asked about the money from GOP backers, Nader campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese countered that many of Kerry's donors also had given to Republicans, including Bush in the past.

"(Kerry) should renounce those donations and give them all back,'' he said. Pressed if Nader would do the same, Zeese said that wouldn't even be discussed "until (the parties) start to change the rules.''

With just under four months left to the election, Nader has yet to qualify for a single state ballot.

A statewide poll by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University released Wednesday indicates that if Nader qualifies as a presidential candidate on the California ballot, the former consumer advocate would steal support from the Democratic ticket almost exclusively.

"He would drain about 4 percent of Kerry's support, almost all of it from Democrats, while having a negligible impact on Bush's vote or his support among Republicans,'' according to Institute director Phil Trounstine.

Democrats are worried about Nader's influence because they believe as a Green Party candidate in 2000, he pulled votes that would have gone to Democratic Vice President Al Gore in key states, thus helping Bush win the election.

Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who was a spokesman for Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said the check-writing was not "a merely serendipitous confluence of events,'' adding that "folks supporting Bush because they want fewer environmental protections and less corporate regulations don't have a lot in common with the Ralph Nader agenda. The only thing they have in common with Nader is they want to take votes from Kerry.''

But Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, calls such charges ridiculous, adding: "It's unfortunate that Democrats seem determined to disenfranchise voters who want an opportunity to cast votes for Ralph Nader.''

Still, other Republicans acknowledge that many in the party have mentioned that a donation to Nader may boost Bush, particularly in states where the vote is expected to be close.

"Republicans have no problem with it, if the goal is to keep President Bush in office,'' said Hoover Institution research fellow Bill Whalen, a veteran GOP strategist. "It's not pretty. But putting a guy (in the White House) you don't like is not pretty either.''

Whalen said the Republican National Committee or the Bush-Cheney campaign can't technically condone such donations, but "you absolutely want your activists to get out there and help Ralph run'' because of the effects he had on the 2000 election.

"Do the math,'' Whalen said.

Nader, who has decried the influence of corporations in the political arena, also has received more than $20,000 in "bundled'' contributions since March from GOP fund-raisers, according to the Federal Elections Commission documents that tally donations through May 31.

Bundling is the practice of gathering contributions together for maximum influence.

Records show Nader raised just more than $1 million for his presidential effort through May 31. Most of the money came from small, individual donors.

But Zeese said the Republican donors were "people whom Ralph knows from previous work.''

He downplayed the bundled donations, such as $18,850 in checks collected and submitted to Nader in May by Peter Tanous, president of Washington D.C.- based Lynx Investment Advisories.

"That was a house party,'' Zeese said of the donations collected by Tanous.

Tanous, who also made a personal $2,000 donation to Nader in May, was traveling and unavailable for comment Thursday, but his wife, Ann, said that her husband raised money for Nader because "he's a good friend.''

"My husband's a die-hard Republican who's supporting (Nader) so that there are other voices, other than the ones we're hearing in this election,'' particularly on issues that include Middle East politics, she said.

She declined to say whether her husband, who also donated $4,000 to the Republican National Committee and $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign this year, would vote for Nader.

Tanous, records show, has also donated in the past to some Democrats, including $500 last year to House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

Whalen says that Nader is playing games when he suggests that his donors are merely acting in friendship and that his message will resonate with GOP faithful.

"What's at the heart and soul of the Nader campaign? That corporations are evil and that we need to get out of Iraq,'' Whalen said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nader's Republican supporters
$275,249

Total contributions of $1,000 or more to Nader as of May 31

$23,000

Contributions from those who have also given to Republican causes, including the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.

Among Ralph Nader's top Republican donors:

-- Billionaire corporate executive John Egan of Massachusetts, who has raised at least$200,000 for the president's re-election campaign, donated $2,000 to Nader.

-- Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.

-- David Reed, president of Washington-based Foundation Petroleum Inc., who donated$1,000 to Nader and $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

-- Jack and Laura Dangermond, both executives in Redlands-based Environmental SystemsResearch Institute, who each donated $2,000 to Nader's campaign and the Bush- Cheneycampaign and $25,000 to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.

Source: Federal Elections Commission

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL

earthmother - July 10, 2004 11:27 PM (GMT)
Nader is a lying s.o.b. just like Bush. He continues to maintain that his support comes mostly from Republicans and Independents, not Democrats. He's a creepy, crawling, full of sh*t menace to society. :mad:

earthmother - July 10, 2004 11:36 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Seriously, I am begging all of you, to please leave Al alone. He is not going to be the nominee, nor does he want to be. The only thing that this can bring him is heat from the press and blame if John Kerry were to lose the election.


Chris, I fail to see how supporting Gore will make people blame him if Kerry loses the election. I'm not saying I support what PFG is doing with this (although I'd love to see Gore get the nomination, but I know it's a pipedream), but what's the harm in trying? If Gore managed to get a few delegates to vote for him, so what? There's still only going to be one nominee coming out of the convention, and that will be John Kerry. Of course, if somehow Gore were to get nominated, I don't think any of us would cry about that. But it's not going to happen. Kerry will come out of the convention as the one nominee, and people will vote for him. I don't see how showing Gore some support will change that, since it's not like people will have a choice going into the election booth on Nov. 2.

Besides, again, I go back to the post I made about McCarthy and Humphrey in 1968. Especially in light of yesterday's Sen. Intel. Cmte. report, people are hopping mad about the war in Iraq. Kerry continues to support that war. I know, James keeps saying we shouldn't turn this into a one-issue campaign. But the fact is that the war in Iraq (and bungled war on terror) is the main issue I care about right now. I care because what we are doing is wrong. I care because the world sees us as aggressive and stupid. And I care because I have a son who's turning 18 next May. You, Chris, are turning 18 soon. I'd hate to see you or my son sent over to fight in Iraq. I'd hate to see any more of our young people getting killed over there. So this is the main focus of my thinking right now. I'm afraid Kerry isn't saying what I want to hear about Iraq. Gore is. I understand why these people are still fighting to get him in. I don't see how they can succeed, but I can't blame them for trying. And I don't think what they're doing is going to hurt Kerry in the long run.

JamesAquila - July 11, 2004 01:44 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (earthmother @ Jul 10 2004, 07:36 PM)
Chris, I fail to see how supporting Gore will make people blame him if Kerry loses the election. I'm not saying I support what PFG is doing with this (although I'd love to see Gore get the nomination, but I know it's a pipedream), but what's the harm in trying? If Gore managed to get a few delegates to vote for him, so what? There's still only going to be one nominee coming out of the convention, and that will be John Kerry. Of course, if somehow Gore were to get nominated, I don't think any of us would cry about that. But it's not going to happen. Kerry will come out of the convention as the one nominee, and people will vote for him. I don't see how showing Gore some support will change that, since it's not like people will have a choice going into the election booth on Nov. 2.

Besides, again, I go back to the post I made about McCarthy and Humphrey in 1968. Especially in light of yesterday's Sen. Intel. Cmte. report, people are hopping mad about the war in Iraq. Kerry continues to support that war. I know, James keeps saying we shouldn't turn this into a one-issue campaign. But the fact is that the war in Iraq (and bungled war on terror) is the main issue I care about right now. I care because what we are doing is wrong. I care because the world sees us as aggressive and stupid. And I care because I have a son who's turning 18 next May. You, Chris, are turning 18 soon. I'd hate to see you or my son sent over to fight in Iraq. I'd hate to see any more of our young people getting killed over there. So this is the main focus of my thinking right now. I'm afraid Kerry isn't saying what I want to hear about Iraq. Gore is. I understand why these people are still fighting to get him in. I don't see how they can succeed, but I can't blame them for trying. And I don't think what they're doing is going to hurt Kerry in the long run.

A few delegates would be great. But trying to get all or even a large group of Superdelegates to switch to Gore would just be damaging to the party. It would become the story of the convention. All the talking heads would be saying is how the party was divided when it needed to put on a face of unity.

While you and Erin are a reasonable people who realizes it is a pipedream for Gore to get the nomination; there are those that aren't who will most likely not suspend their activities three weeks from now just because Kerry is the official nominee. Kerry has been the nominee for some months now and that hasn't stopped them yet. The convention is just a formality. Do you really think that will stop them either?

And as far as issues there are many to be concerned about. On the war even Gore has not advocated us cutting & running in Iraq. His advice to Kerry was to keep his options open since it is a fluid situation. But there are also millions of Americans who don't have jobs or healthcare right now. Those are important issues too. As are issues concerning the environment and the budget deficit and Affirmative Action and Homeland Security and tax cuts that favor the rich while cutting benefits for veterans and assistance to the poor.


bluebutterfly - July 11, 2004 03:00 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (earthmother @ Jul 10 2004, 11:27 PM)
Nader is a lying s.o.b. just like Bush.  He continues to maintain that his support comes mostly from Republicans and Independents, not Democrats.  He's a creepy, crawling, full of sh*t menace to society.  :mad:

I just realized that most of his "support" does come from (as the above article demonstrates) Republicans but that doesn't mean they vote for him. Republicans support Nader hoping Democrats and Independents will vote for him instead of the Democratic nominee!




Hosted for free by InvisionFree