Skip to main content

View Diary: AZ Nader ballot update (208 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Dear Mary (3.20)
    Dear Mary (Queen of Scots),

    You repeat the word "corrupt" quite a bit.  Does doing so make your point?  If so, I missed it.

    Perhaps you are confused.  Nader has exposed corruption, and made quite a successful career out of it.  Moral corruption among greedy and immoral corporations early on -- thank him every time someone you know is in a car accident and has a seatbelt at his or her disposal, or when the airline has to put you on another flight due to overbooking, etc.  There's lots more, since he's now quite old.  Perhaps you can look at his websites here and here.  

    Nader has now turned his sites directly on the political process itself -- the mother lode of corruption and corporate influence in our times -- and, wow, look at the disinformation campaign go.  Ask yourself why the Democrats and Republicans have formed a corporation to control access to the debates, and then tell me who might truly be corrupt here.

    This is not to cast him as an angel, but before we paint a citizen who has worked tirelessly against corruption as himself corrupt, please let's have some facts.  And take a deep breath first.

    Sincerely,
    Joe Hill

    •  So? (none)
        Who cares what he used to do. The question is: What's he doing now?

        The answer: Piggybacking on racist voter iniatives to get on the ballot and, last I checked, illegally mingling his charity and his political campaign.

        The first is just scuzzy, coming from Nader. The second, if true, is corrupt.

      •  Ibid, op cit (none)
        Sources, please?  I'm getting tired of innuendo.  
        •  For which? (none)
            Obviously the piggybacking on initiatives that Nader -- theoretically -- wouldn't support was what this thread was about.

           As for Nader's charity...well, I figured any Nader supporter would tend to notice when Nader popped up in the news, but just to help out.

          Here you go. I just grabbed the first news article I saw, but a quick Google News search for "Nader Charity political campaign" pulls up a number of stories -- from mainstream news sources.

          Since October, Ralph Nader has run his campaign for president out of the same downtown Washington offices that through April housed a public charity he created -- an overlap that campaign finance specialists said could run afoul of federal laws.

          Tax law explicitly forbids public charities from aiding political campaigns. Violations can result in a charity losing its tax-exempt status. In addition, campaign law requires candidates to account for all contributions -- including shared office space and resources, down to the use of copying machines, receptionists and telephones.

          Records show many links between Nader's campaign and the charity Citizen Works. For example, the charity's listed president, Theresa Amato, is also Nader's campaign manager. The campaign said in an e-mail to The Washington Post that Amato resigned from the charity in 2003. But in the charity's most recent corporate filing with the District, in January, Amato listed herself as the charity's president and registered agent.

          It's entirely possible that everything Nader did is 100% legal....but the problem is that it's this sort of perception that Nader campaigns against.

            Nader's always struck me as being very against even the appearance of political impropriety. So doing something like this strikes me as...well...hypocrtical.

          •  Digging for dirt (none)
            I thought so.  This is an old political trick -- throw some mud and blame the target for the muddy "perception".  This does not even rise to the level of "Phonegate" does it?  

            The shared-space arrangement was vetted by an outside lawyer and is legal, Nader said, because his campaign has paid Citizen Works fair market value to rent office space and buy furniture.

            "You can search until kingdom come," Nader said. "You'll find no cross-subsidies here."

            I doubt they will.  Don't you agree?  

            And for this latest "gotcha", the AZ "getting on the ballot gate", I would still like sources.  Kos cited none yet, so until he does to me it's gossip.  Like I've said elsewhere, I'm concerned.  But I truly doubt Nader is involved in setting 9-pt type, and it looks far more like the small partisan jabbing Nader has taken for years now.  

            All the energy the Dems are spending to get this guy!  Trying to paint a man of integrity like an immoral, stupid hustler.  What a great way to lose allies....

            Don't be a sucker and fall for smears alone.  The anti-Nader mob is big enough.  Remember that Nader -- love him or hate him -- is in a game designed to prevent challengers.  He's already unfairly been made the scapegoat for the last election and vitriol for him is in the air.  

    •  Nader's tireless work (none)
      Yes, Nader's done a lot for all of us.  Why is he trying to undo it?

      I wasn't opposed to his runs in 1996 or 2000.  I would have even voted for him in 1996 if he'd been on the ballot in my state (and I did vote for third-party candidates in both those elections).  But a few things have become clear.  One is that Nader's great talent is not at winning elections.  He's done a lot of good in the world.  Why doesn't he keep working to do that kind of good?  If his ego isn't involved, why is he so fixated on the presidency in particular, rather than on doing what he's proved he's good at?  

      Second, the last four years have rather conclusively proven that his constant assertion that there's no difference between the republicans and the democrats is simply false.  Why then does he keep advancing that claim?  

      I do think his ego is pretty firmly in control here.  I think that not only because of his public statements but because of stories I have heard from people who quit his 2000 campaign in disgust after encounters with him in which suggestions for improving the campaign were met with what could only be described as ego-fed temper tantrums.  So at this point I think it's unfortunate that tireless continues to be a good description of him, since he's no longer working for a recognizably progressive goal.

      •  This is the same fight (none)

        One is that Nader's great talent is not at winning elections.  He's done a lot of good in the world.  Why doesn't he keep working to do that kind of good?  

        I agree that he lacks the telegenic and other qualities that galvanize voters, and that's too bad.  Because he's the candidate I most want my son to emulate, hands down.  

        Look at this logically.  Nader is not in this for his "ego".  He's been in the public eye plenty his entire career, and the years he's spent now in the political ring have been brutal and downright insulting.  He is in this because he does not run from a fight and the seat of corruption have moved from corporate boardrooms right into politics.  He knows this is the position he must be in -- and note again it is unpleasant to be so lied about and smeared so constantly -- to undo the mother of all corruptions we face today.  

        Second, the last four years have rather conclusively proven that his constant assertion that there's no difference between the republicans and the democrats is simply false.  Why then does he keep advancing that claim?  

        He doesn't.  Part of the anti-Nader smear campaign.  See his FAQ.  Lots more answers to your questions there.  

        And see the rest of his site.  He's really not the boogeyman you might have read about!  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site