NEWS
GOP supporters help Nader cause
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Matthew Dolbey:
Related Stories:
- Nader still not on Wisconsin ballot (September 9, 2004)
- Nader files to win spot on state ballot (September 8, 2004)
- Nader to appear on state ballot (September 22, 2004)
- Nader's status uncertain (September 29, 2004)
- Nader will run again (February 23, 2004)
Share This:
by Matthew Dolbey
Monday, October 18, 2004
A University of Wisconsin student and College Republican, along with at least 15 other GOP activists, helped collect more than 3,000 signatures to get Ralph Nader on Wisconsin’s ballots while posing as supporters for the Independent candidates.
UW student Matt Holsen came to a Students for Nader meeting to hand over the stack of papers with signatures supporting Nader’s cause to get on Wisconsin ballots Nov. 2, campus coordinator for the group Paul Heideman said.
“I was there when he came to one of our meetings,” Heideman said, adding that the group of Nader supporters started to ask where the signatures came from at the early September meeting. “He just ran away when we started to ask him questions … We told him we knew who he was and we didn’t want his help. We all frankly want nothing to do with the Republican Party.”
Holsen, who personally collected nearly 600 signatures did not return phone calls, and his mother told the Badger Herald, “I doubt he will call you back.”
Under Wisconsin law, Nader needed at least 2,000 signatures to earn a spot on the ballot, and, after a brief state Supreme Court battle, received the nod to go in as an Independent candidate. However, petitioners and petition circulators trying to get signatures must sign a statement stating they support the candidate they are recruiting voters for. The form adds that if it is found out someone collecting signatures does not support said candidate, they may be guilty of a felony.
Nicole Marklein, chair of the College Republicans, personally collected 11 signatures and has openly supported President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign.
UW political science major James Block, a College Republican member who is also running for Wisconsin’s 70th district Assembly seat, said he did not know Holsen, and questions the ethical standings of someone who would pretend to support another candidate to draw votes away from Democratic nominee John Kerry.
“It’s one thing if he if he believes in the candidate,” Block said, adding that Democrats and Independents are helping to run his campaign. Block said he believes Nader has had trouble getting on ballots, and if someone wants to help his cause, “more power to him.”
“But, if he’s supporting Bush, that’s wrong.”
However, Block, who defines himself as a moderate, did add it is encouraging to see college-aged voters get involved with the electoral process.
“A student participating in politics, that’s a great thing.”
UW student and College Democrats chair Liz Sanger said she is shocked by her partisan counterparts’ actions.
“I’m just shocked that a student is involved in this,” Sanger said. “This will not sit well with any voter on this campus.”
Sanger added that this just solidifies her belief that Republicans do not think Bush is a strong enough candidate to win the election by himself.
Sanger said she has a “lot of faith in this generation as a whole,” politically, but said she had to rethink her views after finding out the extent of the College Republican involvement.
—Associated Press contributed to this report
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 7:45am):
Before all of you republicans start defending Holsen by saying that it is a great thing to have as many cantidates on the ballot as possible, why didn't you support any other cantidates who are not on the ballot? If you really want people to believe your complete bullshit arguement, you should try supporting parties such as the 21st Century Prohibition Party, or maybe the Fair Representation Party. I'm sure those are people who would love to be on the Wisconsin ballot. If you want to have more people, get more people. Don't just stop at one. It is getting harder and harder to deny the fact that the republicans are pathetic.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 10:25am):
The Liberals on this campus make me sick. You should all just go kill yourself.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 10:29am):
It's not like Democrats didn't try to do the same thing to get Perot on the ballot in '92. Hypocrites.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 10:33am):
I think the College Republicans severly wronged the political process. These actions are exactly the type of dirty politics that America is fed up with. They should be ashamed.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 11:30am):
What does "severly" mean? Learn to spell before criticizing others.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 11:48am):
Why wouldn't the Republican petition circulators support Ralph Nader? They support the right for him to be on the ballot to actually give voters a choice on November 2nd. The GOP isn't actively trying to block the other conservative (Peroutka) from running, but the Dems are using lawyers to try to destroy Nader's candidacy because they know Kerry is to weak to garner a majority of votes on Nov. 2nd. Of course, a Dem presidential candidate hasn't gotten over 51% of the vote since 1964.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 1:09pm):
The Dems are using lawyers because it is a legeal question of whether Nader legally got on the ballot. He did not get all 8 districts to support him, and as it is shown now, he may not have gotten all of the signatures legally. We cannot make acceptions for certain third party cantidates because they may be stronger than other cantidates. Acceptions for one should mean acceptions for all. And, for whoever wrote that coment on the liberals going to kill ourselves, nice arguement. Very valid, and way to defent your point. At least make some sort of arguement on why liberals should kill themselves. Also, To the Perot fan, quit the fact dropping without proving it. One last thing, one does not need to spell in order to criticize others, our President does not even speak correctly and look at what he has accomplished.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 2:07pm):
way to prove your point...acceptions?
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 2:21pm):
I think it is great that Nader is getting on the ballot. As a Green Party member we are a viable party and are attracting people from the Democrats as well as the Republicans. Instead of complaining that oh no, we are stealing democrat votes or republican votes, maybe we should realize that Kerry supports the war and vote for someone who stands up for what he believes in. Nader will do that. It's sad that people are getting angry because someone besides the two major parties are getting on the ballot. Grow up and let democracy work!
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 2:23pm):
I am sick of all the complaining about Nader, what about all the other candidates running for president?
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 2:30pm):
I'm Shocked by liz Sanger's partisan comments as well!
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 2:46pm):
"I think it is great that Nader is getting on the ballot. As a Green Party member we are a viable party and are attracting people from the Democrats as well as the Republicans."
Perhaps someone should clue in this poster on reality.
NADER ISN'T RUNNING ON THE GREEN PARTY TICKET, AND NO REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR ISSUES.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 3:16pm):
Politics: control, governance, sherwdness, expedience, judicious, attitude, tactic, managment... its all part of the game people - stop complaining; vote - play your part.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 3:17pm):
Politics: control, governance, sherwdness, expedience, judicious, attitude, tactic, managment... its all part of the game people - stop complaining; vote - play your part.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 3:18pm):
Politics: control, governance, sherwdness, expedience, judicious, attitude, tactic, managment... its all part of the game people - stop complaining; vote - play your part.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 3:20pm):
The Dems are using lawyers because it is a legeal question of whether
Nader legally got on the ballot. He did not get all 8 districts to
support him, and as it is shown now, he may not have gotten all of the
signatures legally. We cannot make acceptions for certain third party
cantidates because they may be stronger than other cantidates.
Acceptions for one should mean acceptions for all. And, for whoever
wrote that coment on the liberals going to kill ourselves, nice
arguement. Very valid, and way to defent your point. At least make some
sort of arguement on why liberals should kill themselves. Also, To the
Perot fan, quit the fact dropping without proving it. One last thing,
one does not need to spell in order to criticize others, our President
does not even speak correctly and look at what he has accomplished.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 3:26pm):
"our President does not even speak correctly and look at what he has accomplished."
Like multiplying the national debt by several orders of magnitude, failing to plan for after the fall of Saddam, enriching drug companies with a poorly thought out Medicare drug plan that most seniors think is wasteful, widening the gap between rich and poor, suppressing civil rights...
Quite a hefty list of accomplishments!
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 4:41pm):
http://iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 5:14pm):
This is just a sad thing for Nader. He wasn't even seeking the help here (unlike other states) and his supporters here really are principled far-left socialist types who believe in him. They were wise to reject the GOP support, and I commend them for it.
However, it has to make you think: What is it these GOP activists see that Naderites don't? Why does Nader still insist on saying his candidacy is going to help beat Bush, when it clearly will do the opposite? Nader's not that dumb; he's just desperate for a reason to keep running. Like an earlier poster remarked, he's not even helping to build the Green Party this year, just the right-wing Reform Party! It's really quite sad to see. He's also been abandoned by EVERYBODY that supported him in 2000, including his running mate Winona LaDuke, who's backing Kerry.
I suggest, like LaDukem, people who want Bush out of office vote for Kerry. People who just don't care (you arrogant, selfish privileged people) should either support the Reform Party (Nader) or the Green Party (Cobb) or the Libertarian Party (Badnarik), whichever is more in line with your politics. People who want Bush in office should vote Bush, and then wipe the drool off their face before vainly attempting to read the new issue of Christian Teen Weekly while repressing dirty thoughts of masturbation.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 5:35pm):
"Nader's not that dumb"
You're right, he's not that dumb. Close, but not quite.
No, the problem with Nader is worse: he's an egomaniac.
He used to be an American hero. But he's taken a series of indefensible and idiotic positions in the last decade or so, chief among them the whole "I'm not helping Bush get elected" mantra, that have horribly tarnished his legacy. What made Nader great was that he was an idealist who could and did work the system to effect changes that benefited all Americans. Somewhere along the line, he lost his willingness to work the system and decided to be a spoiler for the system instead.
As for all the people who are either naive enough or stupid enough to buy Nader's line, those who argue that true liberals should vote for Nader, they should have encouraged Nader to run for the Democratic nomination. After all, if people who favor progressive candidates really would prefer him to Kerry given a pragmatic option, Nader would have won the nomination in a landslide. He didn't do that, though (nor would he), and so now has no one to blame but himself if we're stuck with four more years of the most divisive, irresponsible, and destructive president in American history.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 6:08pm):
Notice the story says trhe signatures were not accepted-guess the headliner writer doesn't read.
WHOSE CAMPAIGN IS REALLY FUNDED BY THE REPUBLICANS? STOP THE LIE BEFORE IT MULTIPLIES!!
For Immediate Release
For Further Information
Kevin B. Zeese 202-265-4000
Kerry Campaign Received 100 Times More From Republican Donors Then Nader
Received
Center for Responsive Politics Finds: 50,000 Republican-Kerry
Contributions vs. 700 Republican-Nader Contributions; $10.7 million for
Kerry v. $111,700 for Nader.
Who is really in bed with Republican fat cats: Ralph Nader or John
Kerry? Who is the real independent candidate with the independent message?
Washington, D.C.: Today, the Independent presidential campaign of Ralph
Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo released the preliminary findings of
research conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics. The findings
demonstrate that Senator John Kerry has thousands of contributors who
have supported the Republican Party. Kerry has more than ten million
dollars donated by Republican donors.
The anti-Nader Democrats have spread their big lie to discredit Nader
and silence his anti-war and progressive message that Kerry could not
rebut. The anti-Naderites hired Stanley Greenberg to conduct surveys and
focus groups to determine how best to smear Nader. They found that
falsely claiming Nader was funded and controlled by Republicans was the
most effective line they could use -- a line that can't pass the laugh
test when compared to the facts. They announced their findings at the
Democratic Convention and then spread the lie through the
Naderfactor.com and the United Progressives for Victory.
But the reality was only 700 Republican contributions (no individuals,
but individual contributions) had given donations to the Nader campaign
and most of the contributors were people Nader had worked with on
justice issues in the past. Even among these 700 the Democrats received
more money than Nader-Camejo -- $111,700 to $146,000. But, the Democrats
continue to use the Big Lie -- despite the facts.
The logical question -- never asked by any journalist, so the Nader
campaign had to, is how many Republican Fat Cats gave how much to Kerry
and the Democrats was never asked of the Center for Responsive Politics
(CRP) by any journalist. So the Nader campaign asked the question the
Kerry campaign never wanted asked: Is Kerry in bed with large
contributors from the customary hedge their bets Republican campers- how
many of them and for how much? If elected, will Kerry give them the
access they want due to their donations?
Preliminary CRP results: 50,000 contributions who have given to
President Bush or the Republicans have given $10,697,198 in large
contributions to Kerry. This means 100 times more Republican money has
been contributed to the Democrats campaign than to the Nader-Camejo
campaign. That amount is five times the entire budget of the Nader
Presidential campaign! These are preliminary results because there are
so many that it is too expensive for the Center to review the donations
for final results. Maybe an independent media outlet would like to try,
rather than continue to repeat the corporate media's reporting of the
malicious Democratic fabrication that the campaign is funded by
organized Republicans. We're waiting for the full story on how the Kerry
campaign is funded by the Republicans who play both sides of the two
party duopoly.
# # #
--
Paid for by Nader for President 2004 General Election Committee
--
*******************************************************************
* Paid for by Nader for President 2004 General Election Committee *
*******************************************************************
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 6:12pm):
The beauty about your coment is that you speak of money. This is all about GETTING on the ballot, not what happens when you are on it.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 10:20pm):
And why shouldn't Republicans give money to Kerry's campaign? Reasonable Republicans hate what Bush has done to radicalize their party and they want him out. They think they are better off with a Democratic president than some Republican idiot with no positive achievements.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 10:40pm):
This whole issue with Nader shows how hypocritical liberals are. They cried about how Florida voters were disenfranchised in the 2000 election, even though everyone knows they weren't. Now, they are going and doing the same thing by trying to keep voters from voting for Nader. Did the Republicans try to keep Pat Buchannan off the ballot in 2000? No, they didn't. I find it hilarious that liberals seem to think that they are entitled to decide what is and isn't right when it comes to politics. They're nothing but a bunch of pests.
Anonymous (October 19, 2004 @ 12:10am):
I think it's hilarious that Republicans hire private companies to take registrations and tear up Democratic ones. But hey, that's just me.
Look, these ballot fights are dirty pool, but run-of-the-mill dirty pool. Were the positions reversed--say, Republicans thought the Libertarian candidate posed a threat, we'd see the exact opposite positions taken. Anyone who believes the GOP (and I don't mean Republican voters, per se) have a SINCERE commitement to increasing turnout or ballot access should read some political history before 2000. Motor-Voter Bill? Hello?
Anonymous (February 2, 2005 @ 11:18pm):
Never forget all you self righteous democrats- the only reason clinton ever got elected or reelected was Ross Perot, a third party Candidate.
Clinton never got 50% of the vote. Bush got more than 50% of the vote. You liberals will have to face it, America is just not a left wing nation. Move to Europe if you want socialism.
