Progressive as Pawns: Cannon Fodder for Kerry's War on Nader
By Stephen Conn of Seward, Alaska, a retired professor of justice at the University of Alaska and spokesman for the Populist Party of Alaska (a 'limited political party' organized for the purpose of supporting Ralph Nader for President.)
The progressives and peace activists who are helping to stop Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo don't realize it but they are being used by people who represent the corporate interests, especially the military-industrial complex, of the two major parties.
After months of fund raising, research and development of a detailed attack plan, anti-Nader Democrats hatched a much publicized two pronged attack on the Nader campaign in meetings with party leaders from Washington, New Mexico and elsewhere during the Democratic Convention (David Postman, "Nader foes seek funding from Democratic donors," Seattle Times. July 28, 2004).
The first prong was a nationwide preemptive attack on voters who might choose Nader. The Democratic Party would field law firms to challenge Nader's access to state ballots with ubiquitous law suits to deplete his resources and limit his candidacy. Nader's grassroots campaign would be sued to death.
The second prong was a campaign to insinuate and perpetuate a lie found effective by polling and focus groups, that Ralph Nader was a tool of right wing Republicans.
The first prong: The Ballot Project Inc. was funded initially by former Monsanto CEO and genetic farming proponent Robert Shapiro, with another $25,000, (an amount far in excess of legislated campaign finance limits), from West coast Democratic moneyman, Max Palevsky. This 527 group, officially called, "Focus on Ballot Qualifications, Inc,." was founded in July by candidate Wesley Clark's former counsel-now- Kerry supporter, William C. Oldaker, the first FEC General Counsel, an elections law strategist and longtime Democratic insider. Oldaker is a partner in the Democratic law firm Oldaker, Biden and Belair and founding principal of the newly formed National Group. Its clients, including the Bituminous Coal Association, Delta Air, Corning Glass, Equifax and Neuralstem Biopharmaceuticals (which Oldaker co-founded) regularly seek largess and other special favors from government of the kind Nader has long denounced. The Ballot Project Inc. coordinates the anti-Nader ballot access project with hundreds of lawyers throughout the country, including the banking, drug and advertising industries' favorite, Republican law firm Reed Smith in Pennsylvania and GM's and tobacco giant Brown and Williamson's defense attorneys, Kirkland and Ellis, in Ohio.
Partners in both the aforementioned firms have fought Nader's ballot access tooth and nail, expending hundreds of thousands of dollars in partner hours in their efforts without a single question from main stream reporters as to how corporate attorneys of such prominence could justify their pro bono efforts to restive, paying corporate clients around the world.
Partners in both Reed Smith and Kirkland and Ellis have been quoted extensively and favorably in the New York Times and elsewhere as they portray themselves as self-appointed guardians of the ballot against the likes of Ralph Nader and his ilk. Reed Smith, a major corporate law firm from Pennsylania that has battled Nader over advertising to children has provided 12 attorneys including 7 partners billed 1,300 hours to keeping Nader off the ballot. Kirkland and Ellis, Ken Starr's law firm, which represents GM and other major corporate efforts is leading the anti-Nader effort in Ohio.
No journalistic suspicions about this coordinated investment in "good government" high-mindedness among top corporate law and lobbying firms have been raised, nor have journalists noticed the profound absence of the involvement on the other side by civil libertarian groups who might have rushed to defend the would-be Nader voters' Constitutional rights.
The second prong, aimed at voters in states where Nader could not be forced off the ballot or where he is a still viable write-in candidate, force feeds voters with the most effective lies discovered in extensive research by Bill Clinton pollster, Stanley Greenberg, that Nader is "in bed with," funded and controlled by Right Wing Republicans. For this agitprop campaign to spread the lies, a Kerry PAC called United Progressives for Victory was set up in June by Oldaker, housed in the DC offices of Robert Brandon and Associates, 1730 Rhode Island Ave. suite 712, the same office which houses the Ballot Project.
Robert Brandon is a typical Washington public relations flack who sings whatever song is placed in his mouth with a check. He had already made more campaign donations to anti-choice and anti-Kerry Senator Orrin Hatch than to John Kerry, according to Center for Responsive Politics' FEC data. This is the same Orrin Hatch who recently said terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry," and on Fox News, that Democrats are "consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there." (Dana Milbank, "Tying Kerry to Terror Tests Rhetorical Limits,". Washington Post, Sept. 27, 2004, p1).
In "open letters," full of what lawyers term "boilerplate" focus group language circulated to national and state progressives and in press releases, Robert Brandon portrays Nader as a figure head of the Republican right and as a "divider" of the progressive moment. Unquestioning anti-war activists and progressives across the country joined United Progressives for Victory without a second thought as to the veracity of Brandon's claims, ever available as cannon fodder for Kerry's unacknowledged Weapon of Mass Deception. The Center for Responsive Politics had long concluded that no more than 4% of Nader funds came from Republicans. But in campaigns, as in war, truth was indeed the first victim.
Media spokesmen for both the Ballot Project and United Progressives for Victory are Brandon and Toby Moffett. Moffett is a former Monsanto official, now lobbyist for foreign countries, the Cayman Islands, Turkey (at $1.8 million a year) and the Kingdom of Morocco, defense contractors like Raytheon and Northup Grumman, and McDermott International, a Houston oil drilling firm interested in asbestos liability immunity. Moffett is a partner in the Republican (Bob) Livingston Group and its Livingston-Moffett International Group Practice.
Moffett makes big money for his clients from the war and occupation of Iraq. One Moffett client is British firm, De La Rue. It secured contracts to print new Iraqi money and travel documents through Moffett's efforts. The Livingston group guided Turkey to its lucrative billion dollar plus foreign aid alliance with the Bush administration.
Nader cites Moffett for turning the Democratic Leadership Council into a corporate bag man for the party. Corporate donations have strings. Ralph Nader contends these compromises are part of the reason Kerry doesn't take a firmer position on Iraq or promote health care for all.
Apparently the corporate clients of Oldaker and Moffett have found no conflict between the political strategy employed by their agents to deny Nader ballot access and defame him and their own desires to discredit Nader's anti-corporate agenda and, with it, the progressive moment -whether or not Kerry is elected. Anyone who reviews the published client lists (and glowing self-promotion) on the Livingston or The National Groups web sites will discover the anti-Nader crusade by the Ballot Project and Progressives United, designed and orchestrated by the Democrats, is also a very natural extension of both Oldaker's and Moffet's clients' desires to maintain and extend their corporate influence in either a new Kerry or a second Bush administration. For foreign nations to stand by smugly while their lobbyists meddle in American state elections is what we in Alaska call, "skating on very thin ice."
Hatred of the progressive agenda and persistent public meddling by Ralph Nader in corporate matters also could be said to create a happy coincidence of self-interest between corporate clients with their attorneys' legal wars against Nader in the courts and in the press. Kirkland and Ellis' clients, GM or Brown and Williamson or twenty-nine of the top thirty big banks and nine of the top ten drug companies all represented by Reed and Smith can only gain from conflict within or capitulation of the progressive movement. Whatever the outcome of the Presidential race, for their law firms to invest vast professional resources in destruction of Nader and his reputation will ease the way for their corporate clients as they interact with government, especially if Nader's Washington influence is diminished.
And what about the Any-butt-Bush's -progressives who support these efforts by signing on to anti-Nader letters drafted by Brandon and Associates for the United Progressives? Perhaps, for them, the end justifies the means. Perhaps they were fooled or just went along with people they trusted. Whether they were duped by the fear put out by the ABB campaign or they chose the direction on their own, they are clearly being used by corporate interests who they certainly disagree with.
Antiwar activists, feminists and environmentalists who enthusiastically ride the Brandon-Oldaker-Moffett train over Ralph Nader and his anti-war, progressive agenda must be a great source of amusement to occupants of boardrooms, corporate law firms, and palaces around the world. Who would have guessed that progressives would be such naive and willing instruments in their own destruction in a plan designed by openly acknowledged advocates for multinational and foreign national agenda? The Nader's message is, after all, their own. Ignorance of this strategy and its links back to corporations, their lawyers and lobbyists is no excuse. Any school child could have surfed the web and connected the dots. Now progressives, to their probable dismay, will.
|
Oct. 13, 2004
Posted in guest column. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Oct 13, '04
Our Alaskan friend makes some great points. The whole anti-Nader movement was so anti-democratic, all Progressives should be outraged! I was fully prepared to talk people out of voting for Ralph this time...I wasn't prepared for the fascist behavior of our govt. officials to keep him off the ballot. Join me and others in lodging our own protest at the ballot box by supporting one of the non-Republican challengers to Sec. of State Bill Bradbury in the Nov. 2nd election!
Oct 13, '04
TheNaderFactor.com today released a comprehensive, documented report detailing one of the strangest alliances in American political history - Ralph Nader & George W. Bush. This report is the first to document, in one place, the extensive political support given to Ralph Nader by supporters of his alleged opponent, George W. Bush.
A four month review has revealed a disturbing pattern of Bush supporters providing organized assistance to the struggling campaign of Ralph Nader, almost entirely in key "battleground" states, including AZ, CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NM, MI, OH, OR, VA, WV, and WI.
The report also detailed instances, in Florida and Arizona, where Mr. Nader has actually hired Bush supporters to lead his efforts. Nader is accepting this support despite months of public commitments to turn back cynical Bush assistance intended to use him to siphon votes from John Kerry.
"Ralph Nader has betrayed his supporters and sacrificed principle for his own personal political gain," said David Jones, President of TheNaderFactor.com.
"Nader is allowing himself to be used as a tool by surrogates of President Bush to divide the opposition to the president's reelection," Jones added.
For a copy of the report, click the link below:
http://www.thenaderfactor.com/press/072304/
TheNaderFactor.com is a project of the National Progress Fund, a political organization based in Washington, DC dedicated to ending the destructive policies of the Bush Administration.
Oct 13, '04
You folks want to know why conservatives hold all three branches of government and truly progressive politics is on life support? It is because conservatives are so much smarter than liberals and progressives in this country.
This Nader phenomenon is just the latest example. I've been involved in progressive politics since the early 1980s when I was an OSPIRG campaigner in Portland and worked on the Bud Clark for mayor campaign while attending Reed. Since then I lived and worked in Seattle, Alaska and Texas, and worked on progressive political campaigns in all three states.
At the moment my wife and I are living temporarily in Central Texas because she's doing a medical residency here. We plan to return to Oregon when she's finished. We live in the absolute heart of Bush country about 20 miles from Crawford. And even here there's plenty of work to do. I'm currently volunteering for the Chet Edwards campaign. Chet Edwards is Democratic congressman who was a target of Tom Delay's redistricting fiasco, and who is currently facing a furious campaign from one one of Tom Delay's clones. Yes, believe it or not, Bush's home Congressional district is currently held by a Democrat and we're fighting to keep it that way.
The point I'm getting to is this. We are currently surrounded by Bush Republicans. Neighbors, co-workers, acquaintances, etc. There are a LOT of them here, especially in the suburb where we live. And you know what? I have NEVER ONCE heard a right-wing conservative ever complain that there is no difference between Bush and Kerry. Especially the evangelical Christian Bush supporters. They're not nearly so stupid. They know better. They know Bush is their guy and Kerry is not. And they know the gulf between the two candidates is as wide as we have seen in perhaps a century.
Not even the Nixon-McGovern race in 1972 poised as wide of a gulf as we see today. Nixon was a downright progressive compared to Bush. Take the environment as just one issue (and one dear to the hearts of many Nader supporters). Nixon signed into law the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Clean Water Act. Bush has been doing everything within the power of the executive branch to undermine all four of those seminal environmental laws from the 1970s. Kerry, on the other hand, has the best environmental record of any major presidential candidate ever.
Nader ran his 2000 campaign on the premise that there were no significant differences between Bush and Gore. That was the big lie that only aided and abetted Bush's campaign strategy to blur the difference between the two candidates and turn himself into a more likeable version of Gore. It's hard to believe, but here we go again with the same old tired drivel in 2004. Yet again I hear Nader claiming there's no difference between Bush and Kerry. The only astonishing thing about it is that there are still some so-called progressives out there are are too stupid to figure it out.
This is what, Nader's 4th or 5th presidential campaign? Has he ever even gotten more than 2% of the vote ever? The man is a pathetic loser and a waste of time. And now it seems that he's chosen to make himself a Republican tool and a complete farce.
Oct 13, '04
Kent,
Libertarians have been hearing the same complaints from Republicans that you level at Nader-progressives. Nader actually stole the "there's not a dime's worth of difference between the major parties" quote from 1996 Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne.
Everybody accuses everyone else of being a "pawn" or a "tool" for the other side. This accusation has been around forever. It refuses to recognize that certain people won't participate in politics unless they can vote for the people/issues that they hold dear. Voting for the (somewhat) lesser of two evils is not a very inspiring plea to them.
Furthermore, third parties aren't completely irrelevant (they alter the debate and force the major parties to adapt). And they could be successful in knocking one of them off someday.
Anyone heard from the Whig Party recently?
Oct 13, '04
I don't know who the author of this guest column or his organization are but I find the underlying assumptions of the article to be absurd and dangerous
Politics is a bare knuckeled hardball struggle for power and position. You have to fight (within the law) for peace and progressive values. While we'd all like to believe that the way to achieve progresive ends is to behave in a peaceful, progressive way, but the world doesn't always work like that.
Sometimes you really do have to fight for peace. Thank God the Democrats are doing it in their struggle against the crypto-fascist (hidden fasicst) Ralph Nader.
(My Definition: Fascism = closely aligned corporate governmental power structure that advances agendas of domination and violence, while shutting down democracy and freedom, at home and abroad.)
I heartily approve of the effort to take down Nader by all legal means. He is a Republican stooge, either knowingly so, or else deluded and unaware of his status as a promoter of the right wing (fascist) agenda of the Republican party in America.
Yeah, I'm not in love with Kerry. Nobody except his wife is probably. But he'll do for now.
Yeah, I don't like having to vote for a man who is more right wing than President Nixon (ie.Kerry) but any person with a progressive agenda who doesn't support Kerry deserves exacly what this country is going to get under Bush - the new dawn of American fascism. It's that serious.
Note that Conn explicitly tries to link the anti-Nader effort to "corporate interests", ie "they are being used by people who represent the corporate interests, especially the military-industrial complex, of the two major parties.", thus trying to head off the very charge of pro-fascism that I'm making.
Well there is no denying that both parties are profoundly influenced by big corporate interests. But there is only one party in which the leadership and the supporters are deeply comfortable with that idea - the Republicans. There is only one party which explicitly thinks that the fasicst corporate model is the way the world OUGHT to run - the Republicans.
The Democrats are struggling to survive in a political system that is colored by this corporate fascist system but surely you must agree that by and large the Democrats are not ideological committed fascists in the same way that the Republicans are.
That's a distinction worth keeping in mind. To smear the Democrats with the fascist accusation as Conn does is to oversimplify.... and thus to justify a vote for Nader, and thus to support the election of the REAL fascists (the Republicans) as opposed to the "fascist tinged, but unhappy about it" Democrats.
The only progressive argument for voting for Nader is that you want to "heighten the crisis" of capitalism (as it were), but if that's what you believe, a true progressive might as well just vote for Bush, so that things will get really bad, and finally create a progressive counter reaction. That doesn't seem very smart to me.
John Kerry is different enough from Bush, and the beliefs of people who serve in his administration will be different enough, and uncomfortable enough with coporate fascism, to make his election an important PROGRESSIVE goal. We've got to staunch the bleeding.
A vote for Nader is a vote for a lie - it is a vote for the very opposite of the progressive values he claims to represent.
Is Nader a fascist? I don't know and I don't care. I only know that he is the CANDIDATE of fascists, and, I'm sorry to say it, fools.
I'm not sure why Blue Oregon would choose to publish a pro-fascist guest column. That's your choice I guess. It wouldn't be mine.
Oct 13, '04
I still defy any Nader supporter to give a cogent argument as to why Ralph would make a decent president. In 2000 he refused to take a position on gay and lesbian rights because he didn't believe in "gonadal politics" whatever that's supposed to mean. He said a Bush administration would be good for the environment because under Reagan Sierra Club membership went up.
He's never held elective office and has seldom worked for a consensus or in a leadership position.
I point these things out because the Nader folks want it both ways, they say that they aren't just a protest candidate but this guy would probably do a really crappy job if ever elected.
And the guy in Texas is correct that it's such a misrepresentation to say the two parties are the same.
Oct 13, '04
Furthermore, third parties aren't completely irrelevant (they alter the debate and force the major parties to adapt). And they could be successful in knocking one of them off someday.
I don't disagree. But of course your point is completely irrevelant to the discussion because Nader is not running as a 3rd party candidate. He's running as an independent candidate who has no party. Nader obviously isn't a Green Party candidate anymore. Even the Greens rejected him and nominated their own candidate.
What is he, a Reform Party candidate? He's on some ballots as a Reform Party candidate but I don't see any party behind him. What is the Reform Party platform anyway? Is Nader running on the same platform as Pat Buchannan four years ago? Then there's the populist party of Alaska guy who started this thread. Is Nader a Populist Party candidate? Or is that just another fake party created solely for the purpose of getting Nader's ego on the ballot?
You might have had an argument four years ago when Nader was running as a Green. But not anymore. Today he seems to be running as a party of one as there's not a single candidate I know of at the local, state, or federal level who is running on the same platform as Nader. Can you name any?
I don't disagree that third parties have had an impact on US politics. The Socialist Party of Eugene Debs certainly influenced Roosevelt's New Deal. The Progressive Party of the late 19th Century certainly influenced agrarian policy until it was finally hijacked by William Jennings Bryan.
Even George Wallace ran as a third party candidate in 1968. He was on the ballot in all 50 states as the America Independent Party candidate and with 13.5% of the vote and 46 electors, was probably even more responsible for the election of Richard Nixon than Nader was for the Election of George Bush.
Show me a single example of an independent presidential candidate with no party who has left any lasting impact on American politics?
12:50 p.m.
Oct 13, '04
Miles:I'm not sure why Blue Oregon would choose to publish a pro-fascist guest column. That's your choice I guess. It wouldn't be mine.
Miles, I chose to publish this piece precisely because I believed it would spark a good conversation about the nature of progressive politics in 2004. The question of Nader vs. Kerry vs. Bush is a good one.
BlueOregon is not a place for one-sided spin - it's a place for news and commentary for progressives in Oregon. Often, we'll all agree - but it'll be more interesting when we don't.
Keep up the good comments. I'm enjoying them.
Oct 13, '04
Kari, Sorry that was too harsh. It was just hard to read this proNader piece days before voting. Got me a little hot under the collar. And of course I enjoyed immensely writing my rebuttal. So thanks for the opportunity.
Plus, to your credit, you chose a rather difficult to follow pro-Nader argument that probably wouldn't convince anyone anyway.
;-)
Miles
1:15 p.m.
Oct 13, '04
We could verify this dog-simply: Contact Oregonians for a Sound Economy, Norquist's latest anti-tax shills.
Did their guy or did their guy not interview with the Daily Show and tell Stephen Colbert point blank that he was helping Nader to try to ruin Kerry?
Oct 13, '04
The so-called greatest nation in the world, the richest... and all the other superlatives... and where are we today? Sure, we have all our comforts and cable tv. Are you satisfied with that? Many Americans are. We can't even get them to leave the couch to vote-it's embarrassing how low voter turnout is for any election. For those who look beyond the couch, we know this country is on a downward slide both here and abroad. A post here by Miles says, "Kerry will do for now." Again the lesser of two evils. If it is just, "Anybody but Bush,"... what is our expectation level of this presidential candidate to work for a strong country for all of us? Very little. That's precisely why Nader runs- to promote a platform on issues that will truly achieve justice and a betterment to its citizens without Big Money influences. His message would be heard widely if he were allowed to debate and offer the voter an alternative viewpoint that would get a flicker of hope, a ray of light into these utterly depressing times. We all should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this country to sink this far. Where is universal health care, affordable drugs, decent wages, and excellent schools? Sorry, not available yet. Nader has been working tirelessly for five decades establishing consumer organizations in the name of JUSTICE (see dictionary) and fighting corporate's influence on every aspect of American life including its heavy hand in politics. Find out about a stellar civic leader at www.votenader.org. and see if he represents what you truly believe in.
Oct 13, '04
Dianne,
Are you indifferent to the composition of the supreme court and the fate of abortion rights for the next 30 years? If Kerry loses, abortion rights are gone in the United States of America for a long long time.
Do you believe that the modifications Kerry wants in the Patriot Act mean nothing? If Kerry does not win, our civil liberties are out the window.
Does the difference between out of Iraq in four years (Kerry) versus 10 to 15 years (Bush) mean nothing to you? I think of the young lives who will be utterly wasted by Bush and it makes me sick.
Can you explain to me how the satisfaction of voting for a platform that you like is more important than avoiding these Bush disasters?
Please let us all know.
Oct 15, '04
Hello Miles and others- Of course I know Bush is the worst- I'm not convinced Kerry will do any better by operating in our system of lies, corruption, and Big Money. The whole system needs an overhaul from the Electoral College to truly guaranteeing democratic rights to all. Remember when Ross Perot debated and pulled in a sizeable vote because he was heard? Nader and many smaller parties have a right to be heard. This is Nader's last go-around. He's desparately trying to see reform instead of the direction we are going. He wrote letters to both candidates requesting they endorse issues for our citizens that are NEEDED. But the 2 party candidates are spineless, no guts, always play it safe. They stay away from "touchy" subjects so as not to shake up the populace too much or Congress and go with whatever will pull in the votes. We still have 45 million Americans with no health insurance and outrageous Rx bills. People are literally dying because they can't pay or put off going for treatment until it is too late. Remember when Hillary Clinton's pet project was health care? What happened? WE are getting what we earn-cause and effect. When will the power be in the hands of the people and not the corporations? Ceo's are making millions and sending the jobs to foreign countries and exploiting workers worldwide. Organized labor is struggling- it's simply not in the interests of the corporations to pay a decent wage to OUR people. A friend told me yesterday that Martha Stewart signed a mega million contract to write about her incarceration. What fool would want to read about her travails? Can't you see how we are pawns to the power of a handful? What if WE THE PEOPLE said we are not going to allow this behaviour anymore- we want a good standard of living for everyone so we can live fulfilled lives with our families. Is this too much to ask in the richest nation in the world? What did the debates prove- it's tortuous to watch them. Facts galore, promises, posturing, getting the right facial expression... I would love to see a brain trust (using our multi -tech resourses) behind the scenes at the debates that quickly look up and clarify what the candidates are promulgating and simultaneously flash it on the screen. What IS their voting record, did they or did they not say that? People wake up! So many times, instead of a candidate ANSWERING the direct question, it became a rehearsed statement that the team- behind -the- candidate agreed will work. What percentage of Americans can see through the lies and manipulation? But, this is the best we can come up with. WE ARE GETTING WHAT WE DESERVE. To quote Greg Bates in Ralph's Revolt: "Ralph Nader is our nation's most qualified presidential candidate. No other candidate in the 2004 race has amassed his record of public service stretching over 40 years...Nader has no corporate ties, no PAC money. He founded or help found over 40 public service organizations of which Public Citizen is the most famous." Incidentally, Nader lobbied for safety doors separating cabins from cockpit doors BEFORE 911. The airlines said it was too expensive... better to fund our bloated military budget. When are we going to wake up? There has to be change. Only we the people can do it. You and me. It goes WAY beyond getting a Democrat in the White House. I want my vote to COUNT for the candidate that represents JUSTICE. My vote goes to Ralph Nader. Like I said, we get what we earn. It's cumulative.
Oct 23, '04
I just dropped by to see what some of the response had been to my piece. Your people are really living in a dream world if you think I am connected to Bush. You can see the Ballot Project's latest IRS filing on the center for public integrity site and it documents that it hired the florida firm and the illinois firm and the firm that designed the Pennsylvania strategy to remove Nader off of the ballot so the voters would not make the mistake of picking the wrong person, in your estimation, or Kerry-who I understand has taken his campaign elsewhere now, would not have to debate the war or universial health care. Here is a revelation for you: Hating bush does not make you a progressive. He is a horrible president. But showing contempt for voters by precluding their involvement are a means to an end puts you on the wrong side of democracy, I can assure you. The clients of Toby Moffett are Turkey, Morroco and the Caymen Islands. So-called progressives are fronting for these people. You have nothing to be proud of and the Democrats are now the neo-Dixiecrats using a more sophisticated tactic to run off troublesome voters than the KKK but as vile a tactic nonetheless. Think about this. Do the ends really justify the means, folks? Greetings from Alaska, Steve Conn
Oct 23, '04