Conason: Nader has some splain'in to do

Office space

Ralph Nader's got some explaining to do. Why is his campaign headquarters housed in his nonprofit's tax-exempt offices?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason



March 15, 2004 | Ever since Ralph Nader announced his independent candidacy for president last month, both friends and critics have wondered why he is running -- and where the great gadfly will obtain the enormous resources needed for a national campaign. Already there is evidence that his organization may be cutting financial corners and skirting the dubious edge of federal election and tax laws.

The Nader 2004 campaign is presently headquartered at 1400 16th Street in Washington -- a modern, downtown office building where it shares a suite with an outfit called Citizen Works. That group describes itself as "a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization founded by Ralph Nader in April 2001 to advance justice by strengthening citizen participation in power."


In other words, his presidential campaign is occupying the same premises as one of his nonprofit groups. Finding the Nader campaign office isn't easy, although campaigns usually seek to encourage easy access for volunteers and journalists. While the campaign quickly put up an official Web site, it lists no telephone number and no street address for the national headquarters. Only a post office box and an e-mail address are posted on the site. (By contrast, telephone numbers and addresses are easily found on John Kerry's Web site.) Reached at the unpublished telephone number for the Nader presidential headquarters, a campaign worker said the campaign is located in the same offices as Citizen Works.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/15/nader/index.html

I think if anyone ever knew the full story of this fraud, we'd been questioning if there is any difference between Nader and Bush.

Nader is a phony bastage!

Oh please. Conason is the Clinton butt boy.
Maybe you should check out what Tavis Smiley said about Nader basically showing the Democrats where their Liberal heart should be.
That was on Real time a couple of weeks ago.
Did Joe C ever mention Clinton shilling for the Arms industry? Or maybe how he sold out American workers by signing NAFTA? Or his Gay supporters with first Don't Ask Don't Tell, then Defense of Marriage.
Joe is just another tired old Clinton sycophant, who's last remaining job is to attack anyone who will possibly show just how corrupt the post Clinton Democratic party is.

This is not some ideological dillusion. This is the real world where we dont get ideologically perfect candidates. So we have to use our political power to do what is best for our country, which is beating Bush.

You oversimplify the world, which allows you to pretend that Nader is some unimpeachable saint and that anyone criticising him must be evil. No one is perfect, Nader is far from perfect. As someone throwing an aweful lot of stones, maybe you should be a little less defensive about valid questions surrounding the Nader run.

But maybe your criteria is a litle different.

your'e right -- :hi:

In real time he didn't give a damn and explicitly said so. He never once, not on any occasion, said back in 1993 that gays should serve openly in the military. In 1996, he nver said once, not on even one occasion that DOMA was wrong. It should be noted that he was running for President at the time. In 1998, he never said one, not on a single occasion, said California should refrain from passing its own DOMA. I have never seen any public statement from him on Connecticut's passing of a gay civil rights bill. And he also called gay rights along with abortion, gonadal politics which had no place in the political arena. Sorry, but for Nader to speak about gay rights is about as reasonable as Limbaugh giving anti drug lectures.

Especially Don't Ask Don't Tell - Clinton was pushing for a policy where sexual orientation wouldn't matter at all. DADT was the best he could get - it was certainly better than nothing.

Clinton's presidency would have been much better without the Republicans. But that's common sense, isn't it?

He doesn't live by what he says, but people apparently aren't too concerned about that. :(

who thinks that thier ideology justifies breaking rules or operating in secrecy.

He criticizes Gore and others for their corporate portfolios, yet by investing in the Fidelity Magellan fund, Nader has put money into the same Occidental Oil stocks he derided Gore for, and also:

Raytheon
Halliburton
General Dynamics
Boeing

His own Nader's Raiders have denounced these companies AND the Fidelity fund, and Nader himself has issued statements blasting the individual corporations. The hypocrisy is what gets me.

He kind of reminds me of that grandfatherly old man in California who plowed his car into the farmer's market, killing many innocent bystanders.

the alternative is just too painful

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and Kerry's only beating bush on the polls by a couple percent...So every bit counts...But let me put it to you this way...If you think us Dems are going to sit on our Hands regarding Ralph Fucking Nader during election 2004 then you got another thing coming... You're God Damn right were gonna take him out... Get use to it!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This is not about his platform- it's about a 3 to 1 fight against us Democrats.

We will now have BUSH, the MEDIA and NADER slinging mud at us...

Why are we supposed to be HAPPY about this 3 to 1 fight?

If Nader wants to be pro-Democratic, then he needs to help us UNITE, not DIVIDE moderates & progressives...

to tell us what the Green Party received from the funds Nader collected in 2000.

Though the Green Party supported him, he registerd for his candidacy under his own organization.

How much did he collect from funds?

Were all debts payed off with funds left over?

Why am I asking?

I think he is in this for the money.

I think he is as greedy as the CEO's of the corporations he invests in through his Magellan Fund investements in weapons, pollution making companies.

And a Hollywood script writer would have him taking money from the cabal.

He may say there is no difference between Dems and Pugs. We know there is a big difference between the Nader of the 60's and 70's and the Nader of 1999-2004.

Thumbs down, Ralph. You let us down. From hero to spoiler and whiner.

Ralph Traitor, I'm sure the GOP will pay him well to try to throw the election Bush's way, I've lost ALL respect for him.

Anywho, Nader is not my enemy. No, I'll continue to encourage American non voter that the Democratic party is worthy of their support. And if someone tells me that they can't possibly support a candidate that is pro drug war or pro death penelty, I will smile and receive them as a friend.
Greens vote. Worry about the half of our Democrats that DONT VOTE.

Perot and Forbes started out this way as well.
LOL!

I received a response from another Nader non for profit, 2Care.
It started Dear "Wait for Dennis" (which was what I had written for my first name, when I signed up at naderexplore),
and went on about how Nader was running ect...
I have also received citizen works emails regarding this election.