Ralph Nader's Revisionist History

By Frank Carper of Salem, Oregon who describes himself as "a longtime observer of, but not a participant in, the legislative process." In 2005, he contributed "Failed Minnis Plan was a Patchwork of Shady Deal Making".

Ralph Nader remembers 2004 in Oregon. So do I. Why is our memory so different? He’s suing the Democratic National Committee because in three attempts he was not able to follow the rules and organize well enough to get on our ballot.

According to the 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.

And here’s where it gets personal to Oregon:

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.

I am glad that Nader has discovered revisionist history. For those of who were there, we saw two things:

Bush supporters. In an attempt to do just the opposite of what Nader is alleging in his lawsuit and subvert the process to help George Bush win reelection by making sure Nader was on the ballot in Oregon, Oregon Republicans helped fill the room referred to in his suit and article. Citizens for a Sound Economy and the Oregon Family Council admitted at the time phone banking their members to attend, later drawing a federal elections complaint. Of the valid signatures on this attempt, 25% were from Republicans. The ability to select more than one nominee for the same office has since been fixed by law.

A closed door. An assembly of electors is an odd gathering. It is a means to get an independent candidate on the ballot in Oregon. In 2004, it simply meant getting over 1000 registered voters in a room to witness a nomination and sign a petition essentially attesting as much.

That night in June 2004, as soon as it looked as if there were over 1000 people in the room, Nader officials slammed the doors shut and nominated him via voice vote. That’s where Ralph Nader’s problem started on this particular attempt. Signing the petition in the room means that you are attesting to seeing the nomination occur. And over 1000 registered voters needed to witness the occurrence. Ultimately, as we know, he fell short and likely by a margin that could have been filled by the number of people who arrived late and after the door was closed.

It doesn’t matter how many Democrats, Republicans or any other party are in the room, what matters is how many of your supporters are there, and Nader’s campaign in Oregon admitted as much to the Oregonian at the time:

“…Organizers in Oregon acknowledged Thursday that their recent convention failed to attract enough supporters to put their candidate on the state presidential ballot.”

Nader’s assembly of electors in June 2004 was one of three failed attempts to get on the ballot. His first was on the final night of the 2004 NCAA basketball tournament, which got blame from the Nader for his failed attempt then. I wonder if the NCAA should expect a lawsuit soon?

In September 2004, the Oregon Supreme Court did not allow him to gain ballot access after reviewing the fraud the campaign committed in order get enough signatures and the US Supreme Court refused to overrule Oregon.

Three failed attempts. One basketball tournament, allegations of fraud, taking support from right wing groups and an admission of failure do not add up to a successful lawsuit that the DNC was the reason that Nader didn’t get on the ballot in Oregon.

Mr. Nader, let’s get back in touch with reality, the history is on the books, you can’t go back and change it to fit your lawsuit.

Comments

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's not the Ore Dem Party that he should sue, but those in positions of power who screwed him off the ballot during back room meetings. Far too many Democratic rank and file members were far too quiet regarding this abuse of power by Bradbury, probably the worst Sec of State we've had in many decades.

    But he was in the "right" party, so he got a pass.

    That's one reason why I find progressives and Democrats so disgusting.

    Bob Tiernan

  • (Show?)

    Bob, I'm working on a post recapping all of BlueOregon's coverage from 2004.

    You might remember that it was a Nader signature circulator in Medford, Oregon who admitted - on camera - that he was paid by the Republican National Committee to help get Nader on the ballot.

  • LiberalIncarnate (unverified)
    (Show?)

    -Bob,

    Funny, I find conservative such as you Satanic, evil and just plain unworthy of life.

    How's that for one-ups-manship?

  • (Show?)

    HB 2614 lends credence to Nader's allegations, IMHO. Maybe the specifics of his allegations lack merit, but HB 2614 clearly demonstrated that state Democrats (and Republicans) don't want anyone else at the table except for them.

  • (Show?)

    And you might also remember that the Oregon Supreme Court unanimously upheld Bradbury's action in Kucera v. Bradbury (read their decision here.

    But of course, in your twisted little world, the Supreme Court is in John Kerry's pocket too...

  • Misha (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nader is in complete denial. The amazing thing about this is that getting 1,000 supporters in a room -- in Portland, Oregon of all places -- is an extraordinarily low threshold for ballot access. That should have been an easy task for Nader's campaign, no matter how many Democrats or Republicans also appeared at the event. Remember that just two years earlier (in a non-election year), Nader held a rally at the Rose Garden attended by nearly 10,000 people, most of whom were supporters. And his campaign couldn't get 1,000 in a room in 2004?

    And let's not forget, this was the Nader campaign's second attempt to qualify for the ballot. The first time, Nader's petitions were fraught with errors such that there was no way to check for fraud. And, as Paddy rightly observed, the Oregon Supreme Court unanimously upheld the disqualification of those petitions. It's not rocket science. Campaigns qualify candidates and measures for the ballot all the time in Oregon. But Nader insisted that the rules governing every other petition-drive in Oregon shouldn't apply to him.

    The bottom line is: It's not very hard to qualify for the ballot in Oregon. Nader just couldn't get it together. And now he's blaming the DNC for that. Amazing.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Funny, I find conservative such as you Satanic, evil and just plain unworthy of life.

    How's that for one-ups-manship?

    How's that for an enlightened, responsible contribution to the debate?

    Background: Give us a real debate and You've got nothing to lose.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Both major parties have long worked to limit minor parties - except when they are temporarily useful, as Nader's campaign was to Republicans in 2004. This is one of the reasons for cynicism among the electorate, particularly about parties.

    Part of this is about situational strategy in imminent elections. Part of it about putting personal power above issues and democratic governance. In the long run, progressive interests would be served by a more fair and open election process. Instant runoff voting would be a good start toward this, as would fusion voting.

    We should not tolerate a system that rewards one party supporting an ideological opponent as a spoiler. This can be fixed, but the leaders of the major parties will need a push from below to make it happen.

  • a. rab. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Misha gave a perfect recap. Nader didn’t make the ballot because his campaign couldn’t correctly identify supporters (a fairly basic skill for a political campaign).

    Not to be overly philosophical, but I think part of the debate in this thread is goes to the nature of why we vote. It appears that the third party supporters approach the ballot as a means of expressing their deep political beliefs. For those of us less sympathetic to Nader, voting is simply a method of picking who will hold the office. As such, calls for “opening up the debate” ring less true because those fringe candidates have no real chance of winning.

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Actually, Misha missed a key element of Oregon's nominating process:

    When Nader called an "assembly of electors" together, it's not enough to simply gather 1000 people in a room together. After that point, those 1000 (or more) people must then vote for who they want to be their nominee. So it's entirely possible that Nader's nominating convention would then, say, nominate Al Gore. (ORS 249.735)

    That's why Nader's storm troopers closed the doors on the extra people -- because those people could have voted for someone else entirely. Which defeats the purpose of holding a publicly-announced assembly of electors.

    Nader talks a big talk, but when it came down to it, his guys shut the doors on people who wanted to participate just because Nader wanted the results stacked in his favor. There's no difference between that and shutting down a polling booth (or, in Oregon, a drop box) in a particular precinct.

    Now Nader's suing because his dirty tactics didn't work? Priceless.

  • (Show?)
    Not to be overly philosophical, but I think part of the debate in this thread is goes to the nature of why we vote. It appears that the third party supporters approach the ballot as a means of expressing their deep political beliefs. For those of us less sympathetic to Nader, voting is simply a method of picking who will hold the office. As such, calls for “opening up the debate” ring less true because those fringe candidates have no real chance of winning.

    That is exactly right.

  • (Show?)
    Nader talks a big talk, but when it came down to it, his guys shut the doors on people who wanted to participate just because Nader wanted the results stacked in his favor.

    Substitute DPO for Nader and you've very succinctly summed up precisely what Dems (and GOPers) did with HB 2614.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 1, 2007 1:11:37 PM Not to be overly philosophical, but I think part of the debate in this thread is goes to the nature of why we vote. It appears that the third party supporters approach the ballot as a means of expressing their deep political beliefs. For those of us less sympathetic to Nader, voting is simply a method of picking who will hold the office. As such, calls for “opening up the debate” ring less true because those fringe candidates have no real chance of winning. That is exactly right.

    Who would have thought that an insignificant and backward young Congressman from an upstart political party would have won the presidency and ultimately ended slavery in the United States?

  • (Show?)

    i'm not a third-party voter, and i always approach my ballot in terms of expressing my deep political beliefs. there's nothing special about third-party candidates; that they are not members of the Ds or Rs is nothing of significance. we're getting to the point, in fact, to stay a member of a party can mean a deep commitment to a strong & historic set of political beliefs. it would be easy to leave the Dems, for example, over the failures of Reid and Pelosi; otoh, it's the party of FDR, the Kennedys, Paul Wellstone and Howard Dean (and Barack Obama, of course). as a member of the Democratic Party, i have pride in that legacy and what we have to offer the future.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    2 things:

    First, I agree with this:

    "Both major parties have long worked to limit minor parties - except when they are temporarily useful, as Nader's campaign was to Republicans in 2004. This is one of the reasons for cynicism among the electorate, particularly about parties."

    Second, Naderites need to remember that people once alienated by a candidate are not likely to support that person in the future.

    A friend of mine was really surprised in late Nov. 2000 when he told me he'd been a Nader supporter and I responded, "But you have such good manners and so many of the Nader people didn't!".

    There were friends of mine who decided to support Nader in 2000 and didn't want to speak to anyone who didn't support Nader. There was a radio ad where Nader told Oregonians they were stupid to have voted for Death With Dignity ballot measures---he had told us it was the wrong ballot measure for the wrong reason, so why did we vote that way when he told us not to?

    Excessive arrogance to expect people to vote as they are told and then claim to be the independent voice of the people.

    And then there was the utter stupidity of the people at Tipper Gore's outside talk at the Capitol in Salem. Did they really think they would gain votes by yelling LET RALPH DEBATE LET RALPH DEBATE throughout the whole speech?

    Gotta hand it to the Republicans at that speech--they held up signs quietly, so as not to alienate those who actually wanted to hear the speech.

    My sense of Ralph Nader in the last several years (as opposed to the Nader I heard speak on a college campus decades ago) is that he feels entitled to support without asking for it or proving he is deserving of support.

    And no, I don't think it is Bradbury's fault that the Nader folks mishandled their conventions, accepted help from Republicans, and, as said above, "Citizens for a Sound Economy and the Oregon Family Council admitted at the time phone banking their members to attend, later drawing a federal elections complaint. Of the valid signatures on this attempt, 25% were from Republicans. The ability to select more than one nominee for the same office has since been fixed by law."

    Is the Supreme Court part of Bradbury's plot, or are some people just whining?

    Much as I dislike what HB 2614 did to a friend who considered running for the legislature outside the party structure, not to menton how it complicated Westlund's race for Gov., there needed to be a response to the Nader situation.

    And I am tired of the whining. Say it together with me The people circulating petitions are responsible for accuracy. And if they are sloppy or worse, it is not the fault of the elections officials for saying there are mistakes in the petitions.

    I agree with Misha, and no amount of Bradbury bashing will make me respect the recent Nader campaigns. Misha said "Nader is in complete denial. The amazing thing about this is that getting 1,000 supporters in a room -- in Portland, Oregon of all places -- is an extraordinarily low threshold for ballot access. That should have been an easy task for Nader's campaign, no matter how many Democrats or Republicans also appeared at the event. Remember that just two years earlier (in a non-election year), Nader held a rally at the Rose Garden attended by nearly 10,000 people, most of whom were supporters. And his campaign couldn't get 1,000 in a room in 2004?

    And let's not forget, this was the Nader campaign's second attempt to qualify for the ballot. The first time, Nader's petitions were fraught with errors such that there was no way to check for fraud."

  • (Show?)
    Much as I dislike what HB 2614 did to a friend who considered running for the legislature outside the party structure, not to menton how it complicated Westlund's race for Gov., there needed to be a response to the Nader situation.

    Why did there need to be a response beyond the courts doing their job and the Sec. of State's office doing their job?

    What business is it of the Dems (or GOPers) how another political party handles it's affairs or who it accepts signitures/votes from?

    Certainly the DPO and RPO are fully within their rights to handle their own nominating process as they see fit. But what right do they have to dictate to another party or it's membership how they can handle their own nominating process?

    Ultimately the general election settles the matter once and for all. Both Dems and GOPers happily spend my tax dollars on primary elections which I'm forbidden to participate in. But that obviously wasn't enough. Both wanted to insure that I would rarily, if ever, have a choice of anyone BUT them.

    Nader could rot in hell for all I care. I'm no fan of his. But neither am I a fan of either the DPO/RPO. I just want to be able to choose who represents me rather than have that choice artifically restricted by self-serving politicians.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Not to be overly philosophical, but I think part of the debate in this thread is goes to the nature of why we vote. It appears that the third party supporters approach the ballot as a means of expressing their deep political beliefs. For those of us less sympathetic to Nader, voting is simply a method of picking who will hold the office. As such, calls for “opening up the debate” ring less true because those fringe candidates have no real chance of winning.

    And that helps to explain why with practically every election since Eisenhower left office the choice has been the same: Choose the lesser of two evils with the evils becoming more evil with each election cycle. Has there ever been a worse dilemma than the prospect of choosing between Hillary and Giuliana? Perhaps, if more of the people who vote gave their votes to the candidate with integrity and intelligence the Dems and Reps might raise their standards when choosing a candidate. It won't happen in 2008 or 2012 or 2016, but maybe someday the message will get through - if we are not in a dictatorship by that time.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree that we should vote in general elections based on who we want to hold the office. That is precisely why reforming the system is so important. That is why money must no longer be allowed to anoint nominees. That is why third parties need to have a voice.

    If half the rich folk support Rudi and the other half support Hillary, we will, as always, get to choose between the rich folks' candidates. The parties protect and reinforce this corrupt system. I am really tired of that. I believe many other Americans are tired of it.

  • Travis Diskin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let's be completely honest here. Regardless of the factuality of the historical "coverage" of what happened here are two things you should know:

    1> Well over 1200 people were in the room for the nominating convention. The SoS REQUIRES that you shut the doors at some point and move forward with the signing. It took over 45 minutes to get people into that room and they were getting cranky. So, when there were over 1200 people in the room, the doors were shut and the signing started with full confidence that the 1200 people were enough. But....

    Some people didn't sign. Well over 200 came to that nominating convention. Filled the seats and did not sign. Why would they do that?

    2> The Nader campaign collected well over 22,000 signatures to put Ralph on the ballot. But 3,000+ were thrown out because of unwritten rules on the numbering of the petitions. Not that the signatures of Oregonians were invalid, but that the clerical numbering of them did not meet some unwritten rule. In the first ruling in favor of the Nader campaign, Judge Lipscombe did not rule on the numbering issue because his ruling on other unwritten rules put enough signatures back in the mix to qualify the candidate. Later appeals then removed those signatures. All the legal actions to prevent access were undertaken by union lawyers with interceders from the DPO.

    So there are the facts.

    I'll leave it to others to discuss the merits of those attacks on our democracy.

  • Travis Diskin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    By the way. Nader argued that the rules for nominating a candidate were different from other petition drives BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT.

    Read the statutes and you'll see that the rules and regulations are completely different than initiative, referendum and recall.

  • Frank Carper (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wow. Good comments all. Travis, Nader has his age as an excuse forget events just a few years ago. You do not.

    The rules are indeed different because this it is intended to be nominating convention.

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Read the statutes and you'll see that the rules and regulations are completely different than initiative, referendum and recall.

    Yeaahhh... Maybe if Nader's professional bumpkins had done the level of research you've managed to do, they could have avoided screwing up.

  • Jack Ass (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Travis,

    How does it feel working for the George Bush right wing?

  • BN (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, Carper leaves out the allegations of intimidation of volunteers, sabotage of subsequent petition gathering by Dems, Dem leadership's openness about their legal challenges not really being about concern for the ballot laws at all, but only about obstructing Nader's right to run and people's right to vote for him.

    He is right that his history doesn't match the facts provided by Nader's legal team in the complaint they filed, hardly at all. Nader's beaten GM, he's beaten Mastercard -- do you really think he'd take on the DNC if they weren't prepared?

    Even if all Carper's facts are straight and Nader's attorneys are lying their butts off, I find two notions, repeated often above in the article and the comments bizzarre: 1) That apparently some of you can tell a Dem or Repub just by looking at them -- wow! That's better than Gaydar! 2) That Repubs infiltrating the campaign for their own self interest makes Dems infiltrating the campaing for theirs less despicable.

  • Travis Diskin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jack,

    Is that satire?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Nader's beaten GM..."

    UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED was a book about an unsafe car, a book written over 40 years ago. And we are supposed to take the author of that book as infallible because of course any mistakes he or his campaign made can be blamed on Democrats?

  • Tony Schinella (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The problem with this article is in the first sentence:

    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 wasn't trying to get on the ballot to take away votes from Kerry; he was trying to get on the ballot to earn votes for himself and give the voters more than two choices. This sentence is the worst kind of media bias there is out there - not telling people the truth about someone else's intentions. It's pathetic.

  • Jack Ass (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Travis,

    You are helping Frohnmayer, no?

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Nader's beaten GM..."

    UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED was a book about an unsafe car, a book written over 40 years ago. And we are supposed to take the author of that book as infallible because of course any mistakes he or his campaign made can be blamed on Democrats?

    Nader isn't perfect. No one is, but he has a better record than any of the current crop of candidates running for president and any of us commenting on Blue Oregon. I believed him wrong in 2004 for his plan to run in that election which would have decreased the chances of Anybody-But-Bush Kerry winning, but as it turned out Kerry didn't need any help when it came to losing. Check the rest of Nader's record. Unless you were a shareholder in GM or some other corporation that Nader fought and beat, you have to give the man great credit for his achievements. Check the CREW website for the latest on this organization founded by Ralph Nader unless you are a Democrat or Republican who believes in "my party, right or wrong."

  • Frank Thomas (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Any efforts by the Demo party to mess with Ralph and his supporters will further alienate progressives and drive them to the Green party.

    I only hope Dennis will come on over to where he belongs, especially after the cold shoulder he has received from the Demos and the press.

    COME HOME DENNIS-THINK GREEN WE NEED YOU

    Frank Thomas consumeradvokate.com

  • Rita Silver (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Both Dems and Repos have separately conspired to remove/inhibit people from the ballot - for decades.

    The fact that Mr. Nader is suing on behalf of all candidates who might not want to tow the party line of either the Dems or Repos is a just cause. You may not like that Nader appears to get in the way, however, he's actually defending the Constitution, which both the federal D&Rs are rather flippant about lately.

    I believe that if all Nader got out of this run was election reform, ie. flatlining federal ballot access laws so that they were the same in all states, he'd feel like his efforts were successful.

    We all want to be on the winning team; sometimes we do so at the cost of seeing the reality of the situation. When 50% of the citizens fail to vote, there's something wrong with the system. Unrig the game.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari Chisholm:

    You might remember that it was a Nader signature circulator in Medford, Oregon who admitted - on camera - that he was paid by the Republican National Committee to help get Nader on the ballot.

    Bob T:

    That wouldn't surprise me at all, and I had heard of contributions coming from Rs, but the issue here is whether or not the petition sheets themselves were tossed out for valid reasons or because Bradburry made up stuff about technicalities. Signatures gathered by someone who had motives other than to see Nader win the election are not invalid so far as I know.

    Bob Tiernan

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    LiberalIncarnate:

    -Bob,

    Funny, I find conservative such as you Satanic, evil and just plain unworthy of life.

    How's that for one-ups-manship?

    Bob T:

    I don't know -- how does it look to you?

    Anyway, what makes me a "conservative" unworthy of life? My support for decriminalizing prostitution and drugs, and ending corporate welfare like farm subsidies to millionaires like Scotty Pippin and sugar subsidies for Big Sugar (the Dems are still supporting the latter as we speak, as it's supposed to end this year), and my support for liberal economic laws by ending assorted laws and regulations passed under the guise of "protecting the consumer" but which have been hurdles to minorities and other outsiders wishing to compete?

    Is that what you mean?

    Bob Tiernan

  • (Show?)

    And you might also remember that the Oregon Supreme Court unanimously upheld Bradbury's action in Kucera v. Bradbury (read their decision here.

    But of course, in your twisted little world, the Supreme Court is in John Kerry's pocket too...

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Paddy McGuire:

    And you might also remember that the Oregon Supreme Court unanimously upheld Bradbury's action in Kucera v. Bradbury

    Bob T:

    Courts aren't perfect, and they can also be political or too hands-offish. But again, Bradburry & Friends seemed to go way out of their way to disqualify Nader. I'm not big on Nader, but I'm opposed to the royal screwing third party candidates get.

    Paddy McGuire:

    But of course, in your twisted little world, the Supreme Court is in John Kerry's pocket too...

    Bob T:

    Courts don't have to be in anyone's packet to make stupid or bad decisions. You're just asmitting that you wanted Kerry so badly that you were willing to overlook Nader getting screwed. That says a lot about you.

    Bob T

  • Greg Kafoury (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bradbury's people locked the door, which was unlawful. A convention has 12 hours to get to 1,000. Some of the Nader people were locked out, and our ability to get more there was ended. My office was RN headquarters, and it was flooded with calls provoked by an email from Dem County Hdq. The phones were unusable. The Nader campaign was falsely accused of being in cahoots with the GOP, which I know for a fact to be false. Just before the 1st convention, Howard Dean was all over the air smearing us. He was interviewed by 4 or 5 of our most distinguished reporters, and said that Nader was using $ from the same corporations he used to fight to block the Ds. Not one reporter so much as asked him for evidence. There was, of course, none, since it was false. The Ds campaign against RN included the claim of fraud in signatures. Here is what happened: A tiny handful of petitioners made some dummy signatures, the campaign caufgt them and fired them all. Then, the anti-RN forces took those few petitions and paraded them before the press, claiming they were a representative sample. In fact, our disqualification rate was average. A Dem-linked law firm sent letters to our petitioners claiming that they faced prison if a signer turned out not to be registered. Some letters were handelivered ,at night. We lost some 33 petitioners over a weekend. The Dems were little better than gangsters, and if any of htem wish to debate the issue in public, simply let me know. Greg Kafoury

  • Greg Kafoury (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>Couple more things: Historically, about 1 in 4 Nader voters is a Republican. They are not all troglodytes, some are true conservatives, distrustful of concentrated power whether corporate or governmental. Also, despite everything, we got far more signatures than needed to get on the ballot, but Bradbury created new rules out of thin air to throw out countless signatures. It was the moral equivalent of burning ballots. The Salem judge who reviewed his conduct trashed him. The Ore Supreme Court simply said the Sec can do anything he wants if he claims it has something to do with ballot integrity. Finally, the Ds nationwide used such tactics as corrupting petition sheets, so as to cause whole sheets to be invalidated. Lawsuits were filed that had no basis in fact, and were intended simply to overwhelm Ralph's volunteer resources. We won nearly all the lawsuits, but ultimately only half the voters saw Ralph on their ballots. If the major parties can crush minor , independent candidacies and parties, what will be the source of political regeneration? By the way, now that the Ds have Congress, how are they doing on blocking the emerging police state, how are the doing on ending the War? Greg Kafoury</h2>
guest column

connect with blueoregon