Ralph Nader Sues Democratic Party

2004 Independent Candidate Says Officials Conspired To Keep Him From Taking Votes Away From Kerry

(AP)  Consumer advocate and 2004 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party on Tuesday, contending officials conspired to keep him from taking votes away from nominee John Kerry.

Nader's lawsuit, filed in District of Columbia Superior Court, also named as co-defendants Kerry's campaign, the Service Employees International Union and several so-called 527 organizations such as America Coming Together, which were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket.

The lawsuit also alleges that the Democratic National Committee conspired to force Nader off the ballot in several states.

"The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters," Nader said in a statement. "This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices, and a more open and competitive democracy."

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the DNC tried to bankrupt Nader's campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states. It also suggests the DNC sent Kerry supporters to crash a Nader petition drive in Portland, Ore., in June 2004, preventing him from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot.

The lawsuit seeks "compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from ongoing and future violations of the law."

Nader's attorney, Bruce Afran, argued that the DNC would be terrified of having the case come to trial. He said he hoped the committee would choose to settle the case and apologize.

"This is a case designed to make sure other independent and third party candidates will not be subject to the same kind of conspiracy in the future," Afran said.

Nader received 463,653 votes in the election, or 0.38% of total votes cast.

DNC spokesman Luis Miranda declined comment on the suit, citing a policy on pending litigation.

[opinionatedp]

Back in 1992 as we slept in our easy chairs,something was happening before our very eyes that would change politics and cause the mess we have today. It was and is called the RNC/DNC[That would be.... The [Republican National Committee]/[Democratic National Committee].As George Bush [1]shocked the intire world with his announcement of world order,and while the American voters were trying to figure what he was talking about the RNC/DNC moved in swiftly and moved out the womens'' league of voters,[WITH HARDLY A MENTION FROM THE MEDIA] whom had been controlling the voting process and doing a good job for what seem to be an eternity.
Once they took control there would no longer be the possibility of anyone runing on a third party ticket.It was made more evident when they colectively announced they would [INVITE] Ross Perot to the debates.
So; who gains the most from this deliberate attack on the peoples voting rights? Well; Like Hilary Clinton said: [MOST OF THE MONEY GOES TO THE MEDIA]
Little wonder they didn''t and still don''t say anything about the worst thing to happen to the political system in America''s history.
Just this afternoon when Ralph Nader was on Wolf Blizer''s show he was immediately tagged as a spoiler.I guess we can say the RNC/DNC and the media will still control the elections.?What you think?

[opinionatedp]

Back in 1992 as we slept in our easy chairs,something was happening before our very eyes that would change politics and cause the mess we have today. It was and is called the RNC/DNC[That would be.... The [Republican National Committee]/[Democratic National Committee].As George Bush [1]shocked the intire world with his announcement of world order,and while the American voters were trying to figure what he was talking about the RNC/DNC moved in swiftly and moved out the womens'' league of voters,[WITH HARDLY A MENTION FROM THE MEDIA] whom had been controlling the voting process and doing a good job for what seem to be an eternity.
Once they took control there would no longer be the possibility of anyone runing on a third party ticket.It was made more evident when they colectively announced they would [INVITE] Ross Perot to the debates.
So; who gains the most from this deliberate attack on the peoples voting rights? Well; Like Hilary Clinton said: [MOST OF THE MONEY GOES TO THE MEDIA]
Little wonder they didn''t and still don''t say anything about the worst thing to happen to the political system in America''s history.
Just this afternoon when Ralph Nader was on Wolf Blizer''s show he was immediately tagged as a spoiler.I guess we can say the RNC/DNC and the media will still control the elections.?What you think?

[terrorislam4]

I STAND WITH THE DANES

FASCIST NAZI TERRORISLAM IS
Persona non grata

Exclusive: Salute the Danish Flag! - It%u2019s a Symbol of Western Freedom By Susan MacAllen
In Denmark, once-liberal immigration policies have forced huge governmental change and zero tolerance for Muslim immigrants intent on turning Denmark into an Islamic welfare haven. FSM Contributing Editor Susan MacAllen reveals a shocking reaction there and lessons America must learn.
http://familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=1172085

[realpatriot1]

Prinzowhales,

And what exactly has Gravel, Nader, Kucinich, or Paul ever done for regular working Americans or for peace.

Have they balanced a Federal budget like Bill Clinton?
Brought Arabs and Israelis to the peace table like Jimmy Carter?Helped people to get off of welfare and into jobs? Provided healthcare and social security to the poor? Fought for the enactment of consumer product safety legislation(or just made money selling books talking about it)?

It seems to me they just shovel enough rhetoric to convince leftists that they can make a difference when they clearly know themselves that their campaigns are just personal ego trips.

Where were Gravel and Nader and Paul and Kucinich when this war started and why didn''t THEY stop it? Why does Kucinich keep talking about impeachment but doing nothing about it?

It''s easy to talk the talk, it''s harder to actually get in the ring and get something accomplished.

1 moral victory is better than a thousand intentions.

[terrorislam4]

Posted by Nancy_Naive at 06:34 AM : Nov 01, 2007

move to ireland,,, problem solved,,, hahaha

[prinzowhales]

The Democratic mainstream leadership and their weaselly supporters are like the Scottish lairds who tried to rally the Highlanders to support them so they could negotiate for more land and titles...They shovel just enough rhetoric to attract working people to get a fascist elected and leave working people out in the cold while they feast in Washington and fritter away the blood and treasure of Americans--just the way the Republicans have treated true conservatives and populists over the years.

To ''ell with the Democratic--and the Republican-- mainstream. Only the ''SOC''--the Same Old Chumps-- will be voting for mainstream candidates just as they always do. If Kucinich, Paul or Gravel are not on the Democratic or Republican ballot--I and many others will be voting for a Third Party. The lying pigs who run the Democratic and Republican parties cannot be trusted--their oily candidates cannot be trusted--Bank on it! The crooks in Washington are all in the service of the men who run the Demopublican party--and if you don''t even have the gumption to support the decent folk like Paul, Kucinich and Gravel who are trying to change that... don''t expect us to sign up with the ''SOC'' to waste our time for the sake of the faux-opposition Democratic mainstream.

We may lose...but the People lose with Republican or Democrat.

[prinzowhales]

I voted for Nader...and if I didn''t, I would have voted for the Libertarian candidate...I would no more vote for Gore than I would for Bush...The attacks on people who support Nader and Third Parties come from Demon-rats who can''t get it through their pointy little heads that the offal their party offers up as candidates are just as, if not more, objectionable to free people as those offered by the Republicans.

Gore was not a reasonable alternative to Bush...He was the corn cob, New World Order doofus who played second fiddle to the crooked Clintons...He was the candidate of Americans who had just enough sense not to vote for Bush. So, if Third Parties hurt the Democratic mainstream...GOOD!

Its time for the elements of the Democratic party who are for peace, a decent life for working Americans and not bending over backwards for every petty Oligarch who sells himself as a "capitalist". The Demon-rat mainstream is as large an insult to the intelligence of working Americans as anything the Republicans have ever dreamed up. Ditto Kerry! So take you Democratic alternative, your MoveOn gate-keepers and your fake reforms geared to attract voters as a cow pie attracts flies and shove it up your nether regions!

[terrorislam4]

more terrorislam sponsored genocide

Thinktank accuses Saudi regime over hate literature

The controversial state visit of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which got under way today with a lavish ceremony, has prompted new criticism over his regime''''s alleged role in distributing hate literature in British mosques.
The Policy Exchange thinktank found extremist literature in a quarter of the 100 mosques and Islamic institutions it visited, including London Central Mosque in Regent''''s Park, which is funded by Saudi Arabia.

Some of the literature advocated violent jihad, murdering gay people and stoning adulterers, its researchers found.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2201805,00.html

[terrorislam4]

ralph did nothing wrong,,, the demonic-rats did,,,

vote third party or run for prez yourself,,,

[usaprophet]

Ron Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. It''s ironic that other GOP candidates are scared to death of his message, BECAUSE his is more conservative than theirs. Being anti-war IS conservative. Another key difference between his message and the others is that he is a strong defender in The Constitution, which protects our civil liberties. The other Republican candidates, who are mostly NWO Oligarchs, want to erase your liberties. They''ve tried hard to exlude him from the spotlight, along with the mainstream press. In late June, despite a life of antitax agitation and pious churchgoing, he was excluded from a Republican forum sponsored by Iowa antitax and Christian groups. Ron Paul does not represent your Father''s style of Republicanism. He represents your Founding Father''s style. He stands for a certain idea of the Constitution; the idea that much of the power asserted by modern presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the states. Though Dr. Paul acknowledges flaws in both the Constitution (it included slavery) and the Bill of Rights (it doesn%u2019t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn therefrom: against gun control; for the sovereignty of States; and against foreign-policy adventures. His message draws on the noblest traditions of American decency and patriotism.

[tngreen]

To: Ralph Nader
From: America
Thank you thank you thank you!

P.S. Thank you!

[usaprophet]

What''s Ron''s message? Whatever you think Dr. Paul''s campaign is about, the main thing it has done thus far is to serve as a clearinghouse for voters like me who feel unrepresented by New World Order Fasciscts (mainstream Republicans) and their Socialist comrades in crime (mainstream Democrats). They''re actually one and the same. There is no real difference between the two parties. Most people, though, are too distracted, dumbed-down, or outright brainwashed by mainstream media, which endlessly regurgitates scientifically-crafted streams of information and entertainment aimed at imprisoning their minds and keeping their eyes closed to the realities of the world around them, to recognize this. Those currently in power, and those being groomed to take [major] political power, are the global elite, and we are their "Plebs." People on the right and those on the left have many differences, maybe irreconcilable ones. But they have a lot of common beliefs too, and their numbers and anger are of a considerable magnitude. No matter what happens in 2008, I personally believe Ron Paul will influence the national conversation about what the role of the federal government is, how much power should government have over our lives, how much liberty we should give up for security. These are important issues, and frankly, no one''s talking about them as seriously and sincerely as Ron Paul. What''s for sure is that his growing army of supporters like me will be a force to be reckoned with in 2008.

[realpatriot1]

Ralph Nader thinks he presents a credible challenge to the Democrats "perceived voters". Is he referring to those who voted for the democrats rather than him?

Steven Colbert is a credible challenge, Nader never was and never will be.

He''s like Harold Stassen, his ego won''t allow him to accept rejection from the voters, he has to have someone to blame.

[feelfree1]

jn122736,

One more thing- the Democrats are getting sued because they used ILLEGAL means to hobble the candidacy of Ralph Nader, rather than canneling their resources against sitting-duck Bush, and they foolishly ran a pro-war ticket with Kerry/Edwards.

If you don''t have a problem with that, then it looks like you don''t support democracy, but only support Democrats.

[feelfree1]

jn122736,

Do I have the right to vote for the candidate that I support?

If a vote for Nader was automatically a vote for Bush, who do I have do vote for in order to cast my vote for Nader?

Was there vote fraud in 2000 and 2004, or is Bush a legitimately elected President?

The Democrats have spent the last 8 years proving that every single allegation made against them by Nader was correct.

Re: "anyway the margin might well have been greater than 3 out of 4"

And it may well not have. As a matter of fact the CBS survey that I saw showed exit polling results split 3 ways between Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

Re: "I was using the same brush you used when you insinuated that ALL democrats and anyone who supported them were complicit."

I have not supported ANY candidates that have supported these policies (with the exception of 1 misguided vote for Bill Clinton).

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that I have, by supporting Nader.

Re: "There are many readers of these comments and I think they each will judge for themselves their accuracy and/or merit."

O.K. We can let them both make up their own minds;-)

[jn122736]

FeelFree1;

The Republican Party is about as anti-green as you can get.

If the green party had not had a candidate (Nader) in 2000, and everyone who voted for them had voted in the election anyway the margin might well have been greater than 3 out of 4. At any rate, the number of votes given to Nader that would otherwise have gone to gore in Florida would have far surpassed the 500+ vote margin Bush was finally given (by Harris).

Ralph Nader is certainly intelligent enough to know that.

As far as your complicity, I was using the same brush you used when you insinuated that ALL democrats and anyone who supported them were complicit. But then I believe I made that clear in my original comment.

There are many readers of these comments and I think they each will judge for themselves their accuracy and/or merit.

[candide777]

The same Ralph Nader who we can thank for the most dangerous Supreme Court this country has ever seen, that Ralph Nader? I thought he was burning in hell where he should be.

[usaprophet]

You get the sense that the country is desperate for someone to show us the way. Not the old way. Not the same way, but a NEW WAY. Think about this for a minute. What if we pulled all of our troops out of South Korea? They''ve been there for 50 years. Tens of thousands of them. What if we quit worrying about Iran, but instead, realized that its having a nuclear weapon will not mean the end of the world? What if we pulled all of our troops out of Iraq, and brought them all home? What if we realistically addressed the National Debt, and paid attention to REALLY DOING SOMETHING about stopping illegal immigration? These are the ideas Republican Presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul. He''s a ten term Congressman and a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies. Ron Paul has been married to the same woman for more than 50 years, which means he doesn''t come to the race with the sort of baggage some of the other candidates for the White House do. Paul is given to mulling things over morally. He was once a pious Lutheran, but now attends a Baptist church. He never travels alone with women, and once even dressed-down an aide for using the expression "red-light district" in front of a female colleague. I support the 2008 candidacy of Congressman, Ron Paul for President of The United States. Candidates with the high level of personal integrity and track record of adherance to The Constitution Ron Paul always demonstrates only come around once in a lifetime, if we''re lucky. Go Ron!

[feelfree1]

jn122736,

Your reasoning here eludes me. I have not supported any candidate that endorsed these horrible anti-American/human policies (Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Biden, etc. etc.).

Re: "Ralph Nader chose to run in 2000, knowing that 3 out of 4 votes for him would be at the expense of the democrats there by guaranteeing bush%u2019s victory in a close election."

That is a false claim, and an unsupportable conclusion.

Re: "If you voted for anyone other than Gore in 2000, you either directly or indirectly helped elect Bush, making you complicit."

Sorry, but just because you say so does not make this true. This is quite a stretch. Active support and unsupported claims of consequences are two very different things.

Gore won in Florida in 2000, and he failed to claim his seat. It is as simple as that.

In a representative democracy, people are free to vote for the person that they feel best represents them, and they are free to vote out of fear to vote for someone that does not, while hoping, wrongly, that they will later change their positions (Kerry, Clinton).

All that I can say is thnk Horus that Gore''s runningmate, Joe Lieberman, has no chance of being our next President.

[jn122736]

The Democrats are complicit in:

- illegal war of aggression

- support of Israeli atrocities and crimes

- NAFTA and the WTO

- spying on Americans

- indefinite detention without charge

- corporate fraud and abuse

...among many other very serious failures.

If you support them, then you are too.
Posted by FeelFree1 at 03:01 PM : Oct 31, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Using your same blanket analogy. You also are complicit in all the above.

Some Democrats-in-name-only are indeed complicit in all of the above by either voting directly for them or not trying to prevent them.

The fact remains though that this administration and the republican, rubber stamp, congress, for the first 6 years, controlled every thing that came up for debate/votes in congress. There was NO overseeing done because republicans controlled ALL committees


Ralph Nader chose to run in 2000, knowing that 3 out of 4 votes for him would be at the expense of the democrats there by guaranteeing bush%u2019s victory in a close election.

If you voted for anyone other than Gore in 2000, you either directly or indirectly helped elect Bush, making you complicit.

Now he is further trying to hurt the democrats with this lawsuit. It appears that he is trying to help the republicans again.

The green party did not accept Nader in 2004 so he ran as a reform party candidate.
Evidently no party will accept him for 2008.