Posted on 2-6-2004
US
Democrats Trying Shut Nader Out
by Gary Younge, June 1, 2004, The Guardian
Democratic party activists and officials are campaigning to
stop the
independent candidate Ralph Nader's name appearing on the ballot,
because
they believe it could threaten their effort to defeat George
Bush.
They are using every possible legal means to deny voters the
chance of
voting for Mr Nader, including advising Democrats not to sign
his
petitions to get on the ballot, challenging the signatures he
does get,
and showing ads attacking his candidacy.
Mr Nader is running as an anti-war and anti-corporate candidate.
A recent email from a Texas Democratic party official to members,
obtained
by the Guardian, was headed Keep Nader off the Texas Ballot
and continued:
"We need to make sure he is nowhere near a ballot in Texas."
Other
pressure groups attacking Mr Nader have grown out of the primary
campaigns
supporting Wesley Clark and Howard Dean. Michael Frisby, communications
director of the Stop Nader Campaign, said: "The point is
not just to keep
him from getting on the ballot but to make him spend money and
time in all
of these places so he has less money and time to spend getting
votes."
The rules for what is required to get on the presidential ballot
vary from
state to state. In most of them established parties which obtain
a certain
proportion of the popular vote are included automatically but
independents
must submit a petition with a certain number of signatures.
Five months
before the election Mr Nader's name is not yet on the ballot
in any
states.
A representative of his campaign said the opposition's strategy
was
misguided, futile and undemocratic. "They're playing a
game of expecting
us to drop out and that's just not going to happen," Kevin
Zees said.
"They should be working at getting out there and being
competitive."
Mr Frisby said his aim was to convince Nader supporters that
the issues
they held most dear were those most under threat from a Bush
victory.
With the country evenly split between Mr Bush and his Democratic
challenger, John Kerry, Mr Nader's candidacy could prove crucial.
Opinion
polls in at least half a dozen swing states show that Mr Kerry
would beat
Mr Bush in a two-horse race but lose if Mr Nader was on the
ballot. "If
this race is as close as I expect it to be, Nader could get
a half, or a
third or a fifth of the vote he got last time and be decisive
again,"
Charles Cook, a political analyst in Washington, told the Los
Angeles
Times.
Before meeting Mr Nader recently Mr Kerry said he would never
ask another
candidate to abandon an election bid, but hoped to "reduce
any rationale"
for Mr Nader's candidacy. "In the end I hope I can make
people aware that
a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George Bush," he said.
"A vote for
John Kerry is a vote for the principles and values they care
about."
After the meeting Mr Nader said: "He's a gentleman and
he understands we
all have to do what we have to do, as he put it."
There is no evidence that Mr Kerry's campaign is directly involved
in
these efforts, but senior Democrats in Congress and in his campaign
privately concede that they are in favour of keeping him off
the ballot.
"We want all the votes for John Kerry we can get,"
Mr Levigne said. "A
vote for Ralph Nader is like a vote for George Bush so it really
doesn't
make any sense for us to have him on the ballot."
Mr Nader's supporters and the Democratic party have clashed
repeatedly
since the 2000 election, which many Democrats accuse Mr Nader
of handing
to George Bush. In New Hampshire and Florida, where Mr Bush
won by narrow
margins, Mr Nader won a substantial number of votes.
Mr Nader's supporters say the polls showed that two thirds of
those who
voted for him would otherwise not have voted and 10 times as
many
registered Democrats voted for Mr Bush as voted for Mr Nader.
But Mr
Bush's record, particularly with the war on Iraq, and Mr Nader's
failure
to make an impact on the anti-war movement have persuaded a
number of
former Nader voters, including the film-maker Michael Moore,
to back Mr
Kerry this year.
In Oregon, where the Democratic candidate Al Gore narrowly won
in 2000 and
Mr Nader received 4 per cent of the votes, the Stop Nader Campaign
recently ran ads asking: "Ralph, what's more important,
your nation or
your ego? Don't do this again." Another anti-Nader group,
the National
Progress Fund, has been running ads in Wisconsin and New Mexico,
where Mr
Gore won narrowly and Mr Nader took 4 per cent and 5 per cent
respectively. "Four years ago I supported Ralph Nader because
he stood for
the issues I believe in," said Bob Schick, a Maryland school
teacher. "I
feel I made a mistake. By supporting Ralph Nader I actually
helped George
Bush."
Mr Nader believes that the Democratic party is trying "to
block an effort
that reminds them of their past as a party". "Why
don't the Democrats go
after the 8 million Democrats who voted for George Bush in 2000?"
he said
recently. "Thirty-five per cent of union members voted
for George Bush in
2000."
So far by a mixture of poor organisation and a late start Mr
Nader has
done a fairly good job of keeping himself off the ballot. In
Oregon, where
a nominating convention of 1,000 voters would have sufficed
to put him in
contention, only 741 people showed up. In Texas he missed the
deadline and
is now suing the state, claiming that its requirements are
unconstitutional. The Stop Nader Campaign will be sending lawyers
to
oppose him.
His other best chance is to be endorsed by parties which are
already on
the ballot in certain states where they are particularly strong.
He was
recently endorsed by the Reform party, set up by the millionaire
Ross
Perot, which could put him on the ballot in seven states, including
the
battlegrounds of Florida and Michigan.
Delegates to the Green party conference this month will decide
whether to
endorse him again - it was with their support that he ran in
2000. If they
do he could be on the ballot in the swing state of Wisconsin
as well as
California.
|