Sunday, February 24, 2008


The William Jennings Bryan of the activist left runs again

It's official.

Actually it's a bad analogy. Some people actually voted for Bryan.

Addendum: Nader has this blogger thinking about Max Weber.

He must like having republican presidents. He sure won't take any votes away from McCain
This guy has become a joke. Worse, he is making the Left into a joke.
Harold Stassen lives!
Consumer activist Ralph Nader announced he would run for president. When he heard about it, Dennis Kucinich was furious and said, "He's going to steal my voter away."

-- Conan O'Brien
Fans of Cynthia McKinney must be seething.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: votenader2008 moderator votenader2008-owner@yahoogroups
Date: 24 Feb 2008 15:30:12 -0000
Subject: Yahoo! Groups: You're invited! Join votenader2008 today.

This invitation expires in 30 days. Sunday, 24 February 2008 - 3:30 PM UTC has invited you to join the votenader2008 group!

What else needs to be said? Ralph announced today on Meet the Press. 80% of Americans polled say they would support a third party because they don't have a choice they can support in the two twin Democratic-Republican Parties.

Join today if you support the Nader candidacy.
Also visit the Nader website and give to his campaign at (this site is very busy - be patient)

Hank Roth

Join this group!

Yahoo! Groups is a free service that allows you to stay in touch with friends and family or meet new people who share your interests. Yahoo! Groups values your privacy. It is a violation of our service rules for members to abuse this invitation feature. If you feel this has happened, please notify us. You may also change your email preferences to stop receiving group invitations in the future. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to our Terms of Service.

Michael Pugliese
I'll vote Nader again; the only principled person in the race. Thanks for the tip. Clinton and Obama are Republicans in disguise. The smooth talker will probably become president, but at least I'll retain my soul.
Did I miss it? No mention of what he'll be running as: Green or Independent. I suspect Independent, like last time.

BOSS NADER - or how I was fired by Ralph Nader for union organizing and lived to tell about it
Saturday, June 10, 2006
BOSS NADER - or how I was fired by Ralph Nader for union organizing and lived to tell about it

This is the best account of how I was fired in 1984 by Ralph Nader for, among other things, organizing a union in one of his shops. I still stand behind what I told the Left Business Observer during the 1996 election, when Nader began his foolish runs for the presidency that, in 2000, helped elect Bush and Cheney. "First, Nader's campaign against me was incredibly vicious. His top aides spread all kinds of rumors about me in Washington and managed to get me pretty well blacklisted from the public interest crowd (which actually was a good thing). They even tried to convince people I was a communist (!!!) out to subvert Nader's organizations. Ralph Nader may look like a democrat, smell like a populist, and sound like a socialist - but deep down he's a frightened, petit bourgeois moralizer without a political compass, more concerned with his image than the movement he claims to lead: in short, an opportunist, a liberal hack. And a scab."

Boss Nader
By John Maggs
National Journal (6/5/2004)
Copyright 2004 The National Journal, Inc.

Ralph Nader isn't anti-business -- he is himself a businessman, a successful entrepreneur who over the decades built an empire of nonprofit corporations that sell things, earn money, pay their bills, and grow. Like many founders, Nader has a great talent for marketing, and he's helped create some well-regarded brands -- Public Citizen and Congress Watch, for example.

Likewise, Nader isn't an enemy of capitalism, but of what he sees as one of capitalism's regrettable byproducts -- the mega-corporation. His campaign for president, like his 40-year career in public life, is based on a belief that big and ever-bigger corporations are destroying what should be a natural balance in our capitalistic society -- the balance between consumer and producer, between citizen and government, and between labor and management.

Labor unions have made it clear that Democrat John Kerry will be getting all their money and effort this year, but the truth is that labor doesn't have a more loyal friend in the race than Nader. Like anyone in government, Kerry has engaged in legislative tradeoffs, and some of Kerry's concessions have occasionally compromised labor's interests. But Nader, unencumbered by the desire to cut deals, has stuck to his guns on even unpopular union crusades.

Nader wasn't focused on labor issues in the 1960s, when union strength was near its height, but he has grown increasingly focused as union membership and influence have dwindled and corporations, in his view, have become much more powerful. Even though union leaders are shunning him, Nader has many union activists in his ranks, and he usually has something to say in his stump speeches about labor-management disputes.

During his presidential run in 2000, Nader laid out his view that union organizing is an important friction point between citizens and mega-corporations: "Employing union-busting consultants and motivated by an anything-goes, anti-union animus, employers regularly confront union-organizing campaigns with threats to close plants; harassment, intimidation, and firings of key union supporters; captive meetings; supervisor one-on-one meetings with fearful employees; threatening literature; use of surveillance technologies; and much more." Nader also said, "Although it is illegal for employers to fire workers for supporting a union, approximately one in 10 union supporters in union-organizing drives are, in fact, fired."

As it turns out, Nader as a nonprofit entrepreneur has had his own experience with union organizing -- from the employer's side. In one case, unhappy workers at Public Citizen were persuaded to drop their drive to hold a vote on affiliating with the United Auto Workers, and an in-house union was created that over the years won important benefits and worker protections for employees. But in another case, labor-management relations weren't so smooth.

Amid a dispute with the staff of one of his flagship publications in 1984 over its editorial content and a bid by staff members to form a union, Nader responded with the same kind of tactics that he has elsewhere condemned: He fired the staff, changed the locks at the office, unsuccessfully tried to have one employee arrested, and hired permanent replacements.

When the fired workers appealed the action to federal authorities, Nader filed a countersuit. Applying a legal tactic that employers commonly use to resist union-organizing efforts, Nader claimed that the fired workers were trying to appropriate his business. Nader spurned efforts by other progressives to mediate the fight, and he refused an offer to settle the litigation by simply signing a declaration that his workers thenceforth would have the right to organize.

"I was shocked by how Ralph acted," said John Cavanagh, director of the Institute for Policy Studies, who tried to mediate the dispute. "He seemed unable to see how this conflicted with his ideals." Cavanagh, who says he likes and respects Nader and supported his 2000 presidential run, said he was particularly surprised that Nader refused a dialogue on the dispute: "That's not the way progressives are supposed to act."

Accounts differ on what happened in 1984, as do Nader's own accounts between then and now of whether his employees have the same rights as factory workers to organize. As Nader mounts his third run for the White House, his career as a crusader and gadfly is well known, but little has been written about his style as a manager. Even supporters concede that he is a strict taskmaster, with a sometimes obsessive attention to detail. "I think that what happened [with the magazine] said more about Ralph's limitations as a manager rather than any hostility to unions," said one longtime employee of a Nader-affiliated organization. "It is his baby, and he wants to run things his way."

The magazine was Multinational Monitor. The monthly publication still serves as a primary venue for Nader's argument that globalization has allowed big corporations to amass an excess of power. Just before firing the three-person staff in 1984, Nader transferred control of Multinational Monitor to a nonprofit corporation called Essential Information. As with many other organizations that Nader founded and continues to influence, he has no direct role in Essential Information. John Richard, one of Nader's key aides in 1984, helped carry out the firings and continues to serve as the company's chief executive. Richard says that Nader no longer has any connection to Essential Information, but its Web site includes links to other Nader affiliates and to Nader's personal Web page.

Through campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese, Nader declined to comment at length on the 20-year-old conflict. According to what Zeese said that Nader told him, Nader recalls the incident as a professional dispute with the magazine's staff. Nader said the staff had defied his instructions and that the unionization effort was a ploy after the decision had already been made to fire the workers. Zeese said that Nader has always supported the right of his employees to organize.

But that's not what Nader said at the time. In a June 1984 article in The Washington Post, Nader said his employees and others at nonprofit organizations don't have a need to organize. "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union" itself, he said. "People shouldn't be in public-interest groups unless they believe in it and are ready to work for it." Early on in his career, Nader said, "I worked weekend after weekend after weekend... Now people come here and say they want to fight polluters and unresponsive agencies, but not after 5 o'clock and not on weekends."

Many employers, especially those who build small companies from the ground up, feel the same way about their businesses. But U.S. labor law is clear -- two or more employees can file a letter with National Labor Relations Board noting their intention to try to form a union, and, in theory, they are immediately protected from firing and other retaliatory actions while the case is pending. In practice, however, years of litigation await workers who pursue these cases, even when management doesn't pursue a countersuit.

In 1984, Tim Shorrock was exactly the kind of crusading journalist that Nader often attracted to his publications. At 33, he was just beginning a career as a reporter that would see him write about foreign affairs, human rights, labor issues, and progressive causes for The Nation and other publications. (Shorrock and I worked for the same publication in the mid-1990s, which is when I first heard his story about working for Nader. I hadn't spoken with him for several years before contacting him for this article.) Shorrock considered the top editing job at Multinational Monitor a great opportunity. With a staff of two others -- Kathleen Selvaggio and Rose-Marie Audette -- Shorrock did everything from writing the stories to supervising the printing.

A son of missionaries, Shorrock had grown up in South Korea and Japan and retained an interest in America's role in South Korea, which had yet to emerge from decades of U.S.-sponsored dictatorship. This interest led him to what proved to be a big story -- the news that federal authorities were investigating whether giant contractor Bechtel had paid bribes to South Korean officials while then-Secretary of State George Shultz and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger were top Bechtel officials. Shorrock says that Nader, who often read the magazine's copy in advance, was unreachable when the magazine's deadline came. Since Nader had also been absent at some deadlines in the past, Shorrock printed the story. Newspapers and television quickly pounced on the news, which portrayed exactly the kind of corporate malfeasance that Nader was targeting, and the attention raised the profile of Multinational Monitor. This was the kind of publicity that was supposed to attract fundraising for Nader's anti-corporate cause.

But Nader wasn't pleased. He was furious. Shorrock said that, at first, Nader seemed to be overreacting to what Shorrock saw as a misunderstanding about the final editing on a story that other news stories later validated. But then, Shorrock said, Nader started complaining that the story unfairly maligned Weinberger, who had been general counsel of Bechtel during the period when investigators were looking into South Korean bribes. In 1985, a U.S. News & World Report story on odd friendships in Washington mentioned Weinberger and Nader. The story said that Nader had recommended to Weinberger a former protege who later ended up as Weinberger's deputy at Defense. Richard says today that Nader was a fearless opponent of the Reagan administration and elsewhere criticized Weinberger along with other Reagan appointees. Richard says that Shorrock willfully defied Nader's instructions to hold the story. Richard produced an August 14, 1984, letter to subscribers that said that management had offered to bargain collectively with workers.

Shorrock said Nader had publicly disavowed the Bechtel story to other reporters and was making it clear that he thought the Monitor's staff had defied his orders and would have to leave. Shorrock had experienced Nader's temper before, and he hoped that the furor would die down. And Nader took no immediate action -- he continued to pay the staff's salaries, and the staff continued to put out the magazine for three months. In June, when Shorrock got word that Nader was planning to transfer the Monitor's control to Richard and Essential Information, he said that he and Selvaggio and Audette decided to seek collective bargaining rights through the National Labor Relations Board. (Audette, an attorney, declined to comment for this article.) Sending a copy of this filing to Nader brought swift action, Shorrock said. The next day, Richard and another Nader aide told the three workers they were fired and gave them until the end of the day to clean out their desks. While locksmiths changed the locks on the office door, Shorrock said, he cleaned out his files, including documents relating to the Bechtel story. Shorrock soon got a call from the District of Columbia police. Nader charged that Shorrock had stolen proprietary information from the Monitor. Shorrock said he was interviewed by an assistant U.S. attorney who told him that there was no basis for the charges, which were not pursued further.

At this point, several figures in the progressive movement tried to intervene to mediate the dispute. One of them, Cavanagh, said that Nader's displeasure clearly seemed to be with the proposal to form a union, not differences of opinion over the handling of the Bechtel story. "That's what I found most disturbing," Cavanagh said. "Ralph really had this feeling that people fighting for progressive causes had no need for unions."

Kathleen Selvaggio, now an international policy adviser at Catholic Relief Services, confirmed the basic details of Shorrock's version of the story and laughed when told that Richard said he had offered to bargain collectively with workers. Richard also said that Selvaggio and Audette were fired because they wouldn't turn over company information. "That was a pretext," Selvaggio said in response to that information. "We had filed the [NLRB] letter a day or two before, and John Richard had made it pretty clear that he was responding to that." Selvaggio says that Nader had transferred the magazine to another company "because he didn't want to get his hands dirty." Richard, she said, had always been straightforward in saying that he was working on behalf of Nader.

Selvaggio, who has spent her adult life working in nonprofits, has elsewhere heard the argument that Nader made in 1984 in opposing unions. "There is a little truth in it, that we all don't do this work to make a lot of money, and it is not like working in factory," she said. But when employers take advantage of employees, she said, "when they try to threaten their jobs, then anyone has a right to try to protect themselves."

Selvaggio echoed the idea that the firing of the staff had a good deal to do with Nader's need to control things. "He really was a micromanager." But at the same time, she said, Nader and others around "didn't want their workers to organize."

Despite her bad memories of the 1984 incident and after a lot of deliberation, Selvaggio says she voted for Nader in 2000. "I was voting in Maryland, which I knew was going to go Democratic," and thus her vote wasn't going to be decisive. "Nader still stands for a lot of things I believe in." At the same time in 1984, a better-known corner of the Nader empire was considering a similar vote on unionization. Public Citizen employees were unhappy with the lack of benefits and with the demands that managers placed on them. There was discussion of a referendum on affiliating with an outside union, according to Paul Levy, who is still an attorney with the group. Echoing Cavanagh and Nader's own arguments in The Post, Levy said the top managers of Public Citizen told the staff in 1984 that they had no need for a union, because the organization was run differently from a business. "They seemed to think that they were immune from labor-management conflict," Levy said. In the end, managers persuaded the staff to form an in-house union that didn't push as hard for pay raises and benefits, Levy said, but seemed to satisfy most workers.

Until recently, that is. Earlier this year, Public Citizen workers narrowly voted to affiliate with the Service Employees International Union. Levy said that employees at some of the faster-growing parts of Public Citizen, including Global Trade Watch, had become unhappy with their managers.

Shorrock and his staff pursued their 1984 complaint with the NLRB, as Nader pursued his countersuit. Shorrock said he and his colleagues offered to drop their case if Nader would drop his and sign a statement that in the future, his employees would have the right to unionize. Nader refused, but one of his top aides ultimately signed it, and the two suits were dropped about two years later, Shorrock said. Richard said that Shorrock was a disgruntled employee who was leaning on labor laws to avoid being fired for just cause. He said that all of the people who work for Essential Information are free to unionize. None have tried to do so, however, since 1984. Zeese said that Nader was too busy with his presidential campaign to respond for this story. Nader has a long public record of support for workers and unions, he said: "I think it is laughable to suggest that Ralph Nader is some kind of union-buster."

posted by Tim Shorrock @ 10:21 AM
9:01, Thanks for Bush.

24 Feb 2008 10:17 am

Ralph Nader to hop into the race. After all, there's not a dime's worth of a difference between a candidate promising tax cuts, pushing more health risk onto individuals, a re-invigoration of George Bush's campaign to dominate the world through military force, and an industry-friendly approach to environmental issues and his rival who's promising substantial socialization of medical risk, a 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and end to the war in Iraq (and to the mindset that led to war!), universal preschool, etc. Well, sure, there's judicial appointments -- abortion, gay rights, etc. -- and some small fry stuff about whether or not the NSA will have unrestrained surveillance powers. But basically it's just the same two corporate clones running on virtually identical platforms.

Thank God for Ralph Nader.

Permalink :: Comments (38) ::

Share This
As Nader said in his declaration, "let me put this in context to make it more palatable for people with closed minds". Who else is talking about single payer health care, cutting corporate welfare, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, spending taxpayer money for services that benefit our country rather than the military/industrial complex and so much more. Not one candidate other than Ralph Nader!! So really, how is anything going to change other than the person screwing the American people if we elect Obama, Clinton or McCain?
And the Greens? If they're not going to nominate a candidate until June that's their perogative but I'm not waiting around that long to support Cynthia McKinney. Now is the time, with so many people fed up with our entire government, to work for REAL change.
It's amazing to me that some of you don't care who is appointed to the Supreme Court or whether we go into Iran. The difference between the Demos and GOP are huge in those areas as well as other issues. Oh, but we must be pure! Let's let McCain win! Idiots! Thank you for Bush.
Nader got 0.3% last time. I'm not that worried this time that the malcontents of the far left will take enough votes from Obama to turn the victory over to McCain.
The smooth talker will probably become president, but at least I'll retain my soul.

And if you're a woman, you'll lose your right to choose if 89 year old Stevens can't make it until Ralph Nader gets elected.
Ralph Nader Will Run For President Again But Faces Different Political Landscape >...ome reasons why it has changed:

NADER HAS RUN IN TOO MANY ELECTIONS: American political history shows Americans aren’t receptive to the same faces constantly on the national political scene running for President. Voters seem to feel if you’ve had one or two shots at it and didn’t make it, it’s time to move on.

NADER HAS LOST A KEY CHUNK OF HIS ORIGINAL STUDENT CONSTITUENCY: Obama (if he gets the nomination) has some of his strongest support on college campuses — the hub where Nader used to draw much of his original support

NADER’S STYLE DOES NOT FIT INTO THE EMERGING EARLY 21st CENTURY STYLE OF POLITICS: Present politics seems increasingly influenced by the tone, images and packaging of entertainment and talk radio. Obama has sparked “Obamamania” due to his charisma. The deadpan Nader has always been charisma and even humor challenged. A comedian in the 1960s even used this line when a joke failed: “Who wrote these jokes? Ralph Nader?”

NADER LEFT MANY VOTERS FEELING BURNED: His big argument in 2000 was that there wasn’t much difference between the two political parties and that it wouldn’t really matter who won. Both Republicans and Democrats know that turned out to be wrong in in the areas of the Supreme Court, environment, foreign policy, the power relationship between the three branches of government, and other issues.

NADER’S IMAGE SUFFERED A HUGE BLOW IN 2004 WHEN HIS CAMPAIGN TOOK MONEY IN SOME STATES FROM REPUBLICANS who clearly were seeking to undermine Democrat John Kerry’s bid. Press reports documented some of these contributions. This shifted his imagery (except among his most loyal followers) to an idealistic third party candidate to one who was willing to be overtly used by members of a major party to help defeat another majority.

THERE WILL BE A CLEARER CHOICE THAN EVER THIS YEAR since the GOP’s likely candidate Senator John McCain will greatly differ on many issues from either Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton.

NADER WILL BE COMPETING MORE THAN EVER FOR INDEPENDENT VOTERS: McCain and Obama, in particular, have proven to have widespread appeal to independent voters who seem change.

NADER HAS NO CHANCE OF GETTING INTO THE NATIONAL DEBATES since his percentage of the vote from 2000 to 2004 decreased so much. His most likely opportunity: to become a punchline for late night comedians.

Could there be more third party candidates? If New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg gets in it’ll further complicate the race.

P.S. We’re saving this Nader post to update and run again in 2012.

– 23/6 offers THIS VIDEO from an anonymous Nader supporter (some adult language).
–Satirist Andy Boorowitz immediately responded with a satire story (click on the link to read it all but here is part):

Nader Announces Plan to Wreck Election
But Prominent Crackpots are Cool to Bid

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” today, consumer activist Ralph Nader told host Tim Russert that he has officially decided to wreck the 2008 presidential election.

Mr. Nader had been huddling with prominent crackpots over the weekend to determine whether he had enough support among his natural constituency, self-absorbed whack-jobs, to mount an entirely meaningless campaign.

“If I wreck the 2008 election, I intend to wreck it in all fifty states,” Mr. Nader told Mr. Russert today. “I have no intention of being merely a regional spoiler.”

When asked if his candidacy could hurt the chances of the first African-American nominee for president, Mr. Nader put his fingers in his ears and started going, “Lalalalalalalala I can’t hear you.”

But across the country, significant numbers of crackpots who have supported Mr. Nader in the past appeared to be cool to his latest bid to wreck a presidential election.

“If I’m going to waste my vote, I want to be sure I’m wasting it on the right wingnut,” said longtime crackpot Stacy Klujian, who has supported Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex) in his 2008.

–Ed Morrissey:

How much impact will Nader have this time? Probably none at all. Unless Hillary Clinton pulls off a miracle, the Naderites of 2000 have aligned themselves enthusiastically with Barack Obama. Having Nader attack him from the Left won’t hurt Obama’s prospects in the middle, where he needs to draw more heavily than John McCain.

The bigger worry for Obama is Michael Bloomberg. The billionaire mayor of New York City ay still launch a vanity run for the White House, and he would challenge both McCain and Obama for the center. However, given Bloomberg’s nanny-state tendencies, he will likely draw far more support from Obama than from McCain. If both Nader and Bloomberg enter the race, Obama could get squeezed from both sides.

I don't thin Nader will make much of an impact on this go around. In the last elections Nader posed voters with the dilemma of voting for the lesser of two evils or the person who they really thought would be the best president. I think Obama has probably swayed a lot of the Nader supports. But this is all speculation.
Maybe you were fired for simply being a jerk. Anyone who would past that much text into a blog comment instead of linking to it is a big jerk in my book. I'd fire you.
shankar - you're probably right. And the shafting of Cynthia McKinney is probably going to fragment even the tempest in the teapot.
Menshevik wasn't fired by Nader. Menshevik lives in Denver. He posted an article by someone else.
heh, short attn. span theater , "I've got the ADHD Blues, " eh?
Gimme my Ritalin!
Glad he's running again.Probably won't vote for him,but it'll force Hillary and Obama to focus on the ideals of those voters solely lining up for Nader.Instead of whining and bitching maybe these Nader haters can bring their candidate to support and discuss the views and policies which most Americans agree with,which fall in line with Ralph's.
And now for Hillary and the DNC wasting their time and money fighting to keep out of debates and off of ballots.
Actually, I pretty much think today's Meet the Press interview with him is pretty much the last you'll hear about him off the activist left newsletters unless it's another razor thin gap at election time.
Those of us of a certain age remember Nader as an effective consumer advocate. Nader's towering hubris has served as a wrecking-ball against his reputation. Now he is just another sad joke.

Let's *** never forget *** the great bullshit he perpetrated against the gullible back in 2000. Remember his "Gush vs. Bore" and his "there's no difference between Bush and Gore"? The fools who believed him then, and voted for him, must suffer a bit of regret that they may have helped give us Dubya.

Now Nader is back, ready to "save" us again. No thanks, Ralph. You've become the Corvair of political candidates -- unsafe at any speed.
On Friday the NYT had a good story on how much money the Hillary campaign has wasted. Examples, over a hundred thousand dollars for platters of cold cuts for the iowa caucuses, $267,000 in Jan. for Howard Wolfson their Communications Czar. "This will be the best run campaign ever, " Hillary.
One of the leading Greens for Nader is a Maryland loon named Kevin Zeese who ran for US Senate in '06. Zeese was the one behind that ridiculous rumor on the left listservs a few weeks ago that Kucinich was offered a deal by AIPAC, that if could get their support for re-election to his House seat. AIPAC would never support Dennis. As likely as AIPAC supporting Cynthia McKinney.
Oh oh, I mentioned AIPAC, time for the KHAZARS!
On Friday the NYT had a good story on how much money the Hillary campaign has wasted. Examples, over a hundred thousand dollars for platters of cold cuts for the iowa caucuses, $267,000 in Jan. for Howard Wolfson their Communications Czar. "This will be the best run campaign ever, " Hillary.

To be fair, the polls had only turned towards Obama in maybe a couple of weeks before the Iowa caucus. Those plates had probably been ordered in anticipation of a coronation.

After that she had to spend big in New Hampshire and Nevada, and obviously for Super Tuesday. And Obama's organization is like nothing we've seen since Clinton in 1992, and maybe ever. He's had incredible volunteer organizations which have had things up and running by the time the paid staff even reached the states.

He came out of nowhere, and nobody, not even me, predicted it.
Oh, goody! We can now vote for two ancient white guys, a black dude, or a woman - maybe even a Jewish billioaire?

Decisions, decisions, decisions...
The, "Jewish billionaire, " being Bloomberg. He has the backing of the Lenora Fulani nutcases. Remember her?
The Black female "Marxist" for Pat Buchanan.
Here is how crazy the internal political culture of the Green Party has become. When Elaine Brown (a major cadre of the Black Panther Party in the 60's and 70's) announced her run for the GPUSA Pres. nomination, there was quickly a vicious campaign that alleged she had been a COINTELPRO agent. She dropped out of the running after a few months of that. Not that she was a PR genious. Google, "seize the time elaine brown, " and see the cd album cover for a speech of hers with a image of a AK47 ready for kill the pig action.
Eric, a book on the BPP I've been reading blurbed by Eldridge Cleaver has lots of interesting tidbits about Cubans giving lessons in explosives to BPP and Venceremos Brigaders.
Nader brings out voters who will and would only be voting for him.This innuendo that he "takes" votes from candidates is utter b.s,and it's just a ploy used by the dems in this case to attempt to wreck third parties and the voices which appeal to them,which the dems are totally ignoring.
Eric, a book on the BPP I've been reading blurbed by Eldridge Cleaver has lots of interesting tidbits about Cubans giving lessons in explosives to BPP and Venceremos Brigaders.

Well, they obviously didn't instruct the Weathermen until after several of them killed themselves.
yup. One of my fave visiting Profs. for a yr. at UCSC was Michael Kimmel He knew one of the blown up Weather Underground cadre, Ted Gold.
The book is entitled, "The Rise and decline of an Alliance: Cuba and African-Americans in the 1960's.' Short, only about a hundred fifty pgs.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Walsh
Date: Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Ufpj-disc] Insults and Nader
To: Beverley Wiskow

**Please see footer for list protocol**

UFPJ is nearly dead. Perhaps it (we) can get a new lease on life by pushing for the Filibuster movement.
But right now it does not look good.
Frankly Nader's announcement today is going to have the Democrat Party and their affiliates, The Nation and the UFPJ leadership that sits in NYC, in a terrible tizzy.
We should be busy exposing just how prowar HRC and BO are.
john walsh

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 6:45 AM, Beverley Wiskow wrote:

**Please see footer for list protocol**

Wasting time folks. And insulting one another is non-productive, to say the least.
We had best get on with the work of planning the next year's activities. With each passing day things get worse. And blaming any one person for the lack of success for the peace movement is just too absurd. We are pushing the mightiest river ever loosed against the world and those of us who haven't already deflated their rafts and gone home are near drowning. At least I know I am. If another person tells me how negative I am to have no hope in any of the major candidates I think I'll just scream. No, can't do that -- then those who say I've turned into an angry person these last five years will have more reason to fault me and go back to their knitting. So, again:
if not us who? and if not now when?

Firm plans. Solid ideas.

What will UFPJ be doing at the / with the Winter Soldier hearings?
I know the Gathering of Eagles will be there, and they are hoping to be there in very large numbers.
What about the 5th anniversary?
And what about local actions calling out the congressional liars? In Florida, we have Bill Nelson and just today, the long-suspected theory that he might be VP meat has been "spoken."
And Nader is supposed to offer a reasonable alternative?
Please. Please say it ain't so.
Token candidates, just having a "peace candidate" on the ballot, etc. is a waste of precious time and energy and resources. All of us know Nader doesn't stand a snowballs chance in this hellish race and he's far from being the healing uniter that would be required to give any such candidate even a modicum of legitimacy.
So, without belaboring the point that we really need to move on from the attacks and counters, what's next?
And breaking up is hard to do but unless we DO something, the blood-letting in this group is just too much for me. I'm fully prepared to give time and attention to planning but trying to figure out where we messed up and whose fault it is just isn't getting it for me. Know what I mean?
In peace,

This is a list for member groups of United for Peace and Justice to discuss organizing plans and the work of this coalition.

List guidelines:

This list is open to any member of a UFPJ member group. Please sign your postings with your name and the name of the group to which you belong.

Please refrain from off-topic posts. News articles belong on the list. If you wish to engage others in discussion around a particular news item, campaign, or concept, please write a brief intro above the item you forward that can serve to focus discussion. This will ensure that the list is a useful tool for communication and debate between UFPJ member groups.

We want to encourage full and vigorous conversation, but also want people to be attentive to overposting. A good guideline is to limit your posts to one per day, except in unusual circumstances. Personal attacks and racist, sexist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated.

Moderation will be exercised at the discretion of the list administrators, in order to provide a useful platform for discussion that makes space for a diversity of voices.
Ufpj-disc mailing list

List info:

To Unsubscribe
Send email to:
Or visit:

You are subscribed as:
If Nader could ever get elected(we all know that won't happen)he'd be a lousy president.
I have great respect for him as a consumer advocate. That role in life is what he is best suited for since he has zero charisma.

As he once said, he's not really a washington outsider--he knows everyone in DC--he's sued most of them.

Ralph---please go sit down and shut up---you are making a fool of yourself.
Clinton is a Republican. Obama is an opiate. If the country is going down the tubes anyway, might as well go down blissfully ignorant.
I'm visualizing/channeling:

Nader - Coulter

Too bad Betty Furness is dead.
Check out the "Message to Ralph Nader from Anonymous":

Sorry to plagiarize myself (I just posted this in a similar vein of discussion on Greg & Carol's site), but since you all are talking about this -- and as I said there -- I respect idealists: they provide necessary gut checks and keep us striving for better. But I also see a lot of destruction and good things lost when the self-anointed will sacrifice the obtainable good for the unobtainable "perfect".

We do tend toward cannibalism on this end of the political spectrum, don't we?

I'm also wondering if Nader got the $10 million he said it would take for him to decide to run. And if he did, I gotta wonder how much of it came from calculating Republican donors? But it's a free country (less so than 8 years ago, granted), and Mr. Nader has every right to insist he is the only one who can make things better through White House leadership. I just disagree.
Oops. Just realized the url for the 23/6 video didn't paste fully. I try again:
8:54, you are the joke. Mr Nader is a gaint just as is Mr McCain. What the f#@* have you done to protect America? Your attitude makes me sick. America is a Republic but you seem to want it to become a dEMOCRACY. Which of course is just a lynch mob. You aren't worthy to wipe Naders ass.
I went to Nowhere does he state a solution to all the problems he perceives. The site looks more like a book store than a presidential campaign.
He does have quotes from 2004.

If he runs, he will have to publish his campaign donors. The republicans subsidized his finish in 2000, so no one knew where the money came from until it was too late. Let's pay attention this time. George W. Mccain will be the death of this country.
Eric, can't you teach Menshevik to politely link to articles, instead of allowing the annoying reprobate to post whole articles (or, on this thread, articles)?
A joint Nader-LaRiva ticket. SNORT.
[G-C-F] From P&F on Nader: Paid GPUS PD: McMillan still not fired
henry duke henryduke2004 at
Sat Feb 16 15:24:16 PST 2008

* Previous message: [G-C-F] From P&F on Nader
* Next message: [G-C-F] [GPUS_FreeSpeech] A Little Perspective
* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

While Gloria LaRiva is a long time leader in the all people's congress and
now ANSWER, she is also running for president as a leader of the party for
socialism and liberation.

Cynthia McKinney has nearly the same amount of votes as her, and yet her
campaign worked their hardest to block a former green party candidate Elaine
Brown, off the table as a GPUS candidate for president.

As Cynthia McKinney and her campaign have yet to issue any statement calling
for Brent McMillan and the GPUS steering committee for their handling of
Elaine Brown, I would favor a unity ticket of Nader and LaRiva, or should
Ralph refuse, McKinney and LaRiva.

Would LaRiva agree? Not clear.

Stay tuned.


From: cal-forum-bounces at [mailto:cal-forum-bounces at]
On Behalf Of Chuck Reutter
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 9:18 AM
To: Cal Forum
Subject: [G-C-F] From P&F on Nader

While Ralph Nader has more votes than anyone else in our non-binding
primary, Mr. Nader has not chosen yet to become an active candidate, despite
having previously authorized the placing of his name on the ballot. Perhaps
as a consequence of his having delayed any announcement of candidacy, he now
appears to lack support for nomination on our State Central Committee, which
will decide the actual nomination in August. This makes second place more
important than usual. The person in second place will have bragging rights,
being able to claim more support in the primary than any other active
candidate. As the count goes on, supporters of both Cynthia McKinney and
Gloria La Riva have issued statements claiming this lead, only to be
embarrassed when the lead changed later in the count. Right now, they are
separated by 16 votes statewide. Even in our small primary, this is not a
large number. Even if only a few Peace and Freedom Party votes remain to be
counted in Riverside County, they could have a major effect for us

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

* Previous message: [G-C-F] From P&F on Nader
* Next message: [G-C-F] [GPUS_FreeSpeech] A Little Perspective
* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nader wouldn't be stupid enough to take LaRiva as a running mate. He'll probably court McKinney.
Y'all should see the factionalists in the Green Party slug it out on their lists these last few months. Elaine Brown of the Black Panther Party, the other Black Woman who (was) running for the GPUSA Pres. nomination called, , "an alcoholic, " and, "paranoid, " by a National Green Party staffer. Huge uproar arises. "COINTELPRO agent, " he was called. Then Elaine Brown called a COINTELPRO agent too.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Morton K. Brussel
Date: Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Ufpj-disc] Nader and the Ethic of (Ir)Responsibility
To: John Walsh
Cc: Michael Pugliese,, UFPJ- Discussion

I find much sophistry in the Pugliese piece. Weber's arguments leave me cold: they seem not at all to apply to our present situation---they have little relevance to the present reality. It may just be that Nader understands that the only way to convey an anti-imperialist, anti-corporate, anti-militarism message before the public is by means of his candidacy. The problem is that he may be blacked out by the media. If I were an optimist, I would say that the Democrats are likely to win big in the coming election, in contrast to 2004, and so the Nader message will not determine that McCain' election. Most will vote for the lesser of two evils.

I do regret, however, that Nader is upstaging Cynthia McKinney, and I'm uncertain about Nader will run under any party banner. .

On Feb 24, 2008, at 8:06 PM, John Walsh wrote:

> **Please see footer for list protocol**
> Ethics is an interesting way to approach the election. Nader was the ONLY antiwar candidate in 2004 and he will be the only antiwar candidate in 2008. Both HRC and BO have voted hundreds of billions to fund the slaughter in Iraq. And both are calling for 100,000 more active duty army troops in their administration just as Rahm Emanuel has prescribed in his book The Plan.
> I would suggest that it is unethical and immoral to vote for a prowar candidate in 2008. Michael should put that in his ethics pipe and smoke it.
> And today Nader took the unprecedented step of attacking Israel's oppression of the Palestinians and Obama's opportunistic and hypocritical stance on the issue.
> john walsh
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Michael Pugliese wrote:
> **Please see footer for list protocol**
> Nader and the Ethic of (Ir)Responsibility
> by DHinMI
> Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:40:02 AM PST
> [It must be marked on his calendar as "declare presidential campaign" four years in advance. Almost exactly four years ago—February 22th, 2004—Ralph Nader went on Meet the Press and declared his candidacy for President of the United States. This morning he did the same thing. That act of narcissism prompted me to write the following essay, which has been slightly edited from the original.]
> Ralph Nader's candidacy has me thinking about Max Weber.
> In 1918 the great German sociologist gave a lecture which was later published as the essay "Politics as a Vocation." This essay has not only greatly influenced my understanding of the social, economic, cognitive and personal foundations for personal success in politics, it has profoundly shaped my beliefs about what constitutes ethical behavior in politics. Weber believed that if one working in politics wished to stave off threats to the "salvation of the soul,' than "what is decisive is the trained relentlessness in viewing the realities of life, and the ability to face such realities and to measure up to them inwardly." I cannot claim to have measured up to Weber's standard, but I can think of no better standard to which one should aspire.
> For Weber, "three pre-eminent qualities are decisive for the politician: passion, a feeling of responsibility, and a sense of proportion." Weber distinguished passion from frenzy or heated rhetoric; he characterized passion "in the sense of matter-of-factness, of passionate devotion to a 'cause'...It is not passion in the sense of that inner bearing which [can be called] 'sterile excitation'..." Passion manifests itself in the resolute, unending, but ultimately pragmatic pursuit of one's goals.
> However,
> mere passion, however genuinely felt, is not enough. It does not make a politician, unless passion as devotion to a 'cause' also makes responsibility to this cause the guiding star of action. And for this, a sense of proportion is needed. This is the decisive psychological quality of the politician: his ability to let realities work upon him with inner concentration and calmness...The 'strength' of a political 'personality' means, in the first place, the possession of these qualities of passion, responsibility, and proportion...
> [there are] only two kinds of deadly sins in the field of politics: lack of objectivity and--often but not always identical with it--irresponsibility. Vanity, the need personally to stand in the foreground as clearly as possible, strongly tempts the politician to commit one or both of these sins...
> One can speculate about the psychological basis of Nader's behavior. However, I'm taken by the ethical implications of his actions. Again, from Weber:
SNIPPED in deference to the Park Ranger...

Michael Pugliese
I'd predict another Nader/Camejo ticket.
Camejo can't be president. He was born in Venezuela.
I vote for Nader you bitch because I am sick of voting against the usual assholes. I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. And sick of your snotty superior pompous bitch attitude.

Actually, to me Nader is a lesser evil. Try to pin him down on gay marriage.
"Gonadal politics, " was his brush off about gay rights.
Yeah we all know Eric wants to legalize gay marriage so he can marry his boyfriend. Just move to Hawaii, I think it's legal there.
Great, just post canards about the weathermen. An ill wind blows your way, amigo.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Website Counter
Free Web Site Counter

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.
Click for