Muslims For Nader/Camejo

A blog on the Nader/Camejo 2004 Presidential campaigen - exposing the racket of the two corporate parties - with a special focus on issues of concerns for Muslims. This blog is UNOFFICIAL and is NOT endorsed by the official Nader for 2004 presidential campaigen. Blog update daily and several times a day - come back often! Contact:

Saturday, September 18, 2004

$10,000 raised in event at UW

Nader whips up frenzy of admirers - Raises $10,000 from UW Students:

....Muhammad Umar Memon, a UW-Madison professor in the Department of Languages and Cultures of Asia, was one of many people who donated to Nader's campaign during the evening. He left the event inspired.

"If you wake him up when he's fast asleep he will give you a list of issues off the top of his head," Memon said.

"It's a scintillating mind with a breathtaking clarity," he said. "They look like pygmies to me, these bozos, Kerry and Bush. They cannot speak a sentence."

And the young man who was the first to stand and donate $1,000?

It was Alex Correll, 22, a biology and French student at Edgewood College.

"I have a small amount of money laying around that my grandparents gave me to invest in the stock market," Correll said after the event. "Hopefully, I am investing in the future in a different way by contributing to Nader."

Correll didn't vote for Nader in 2000. Instead, he was "conned into voting for (Al) Gore." Correll says he is not going to do the same this year.

This time, Correll says, he's not buying the line that he is throwing his vote away by voting for Nader. He doesn't want to hear that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."

"A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader," he said.

Read Full...

A vote for Nader is a vote for democracy

Glenn Foltin
September 18, 2004
Star Tribune:

With Election Day still nearly two months away, I have made up my mind to waste my vote. Despite warnings against the folly of supporting a third-party candidate and admonitions that such support may help to elect someone I oppose, I intend to vote for Ralph Nader.

The reason for my decision could not be any simpler, or in my mind any more relevant: As a progressive, Nader is the candidate whose views are closest to my own. This reasoning may be criticized as impractical, but I am convinced that democracy functions best when voters choose candidates out of hope and principle rather than fear and resignation.

Although John Kerry's opponents have vociferously attacked him as a liberal, his record and rhetoric belie that label. Kerry voted to authorize military action in Iraq and has repeatedly reiterated his support for the war. He has even said that he would have supported military intervention if he had known that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. Other notably antiprogressive Kerry votes include those he cast in favor of the USA Patriot Act and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

His stated plan for the future is no more encouraging. Even at his most optimistic Kerry speaks of continuing the occupation of Iraq for four more years. He has also suggested that, like President Bush, he would consider using military force preemptively.

Domestically, Kerry makes no mention of living-wage legislation and fails to support universal health care, but emphasizes his determination to lower corporate tax rates.

In contrast, Nader has steadfastly opposed the war and calls for a swift end to our military and corporate occupation of Iraq. He advocates the establishment of a living wage and a single-payer health care system that would insure all Americans. Nader also champions a repeal of the Patriot Act and is a proponent of meaningful campaign finance reform. These are vital issues for liberals, yet many on the left continue to believe that they must support any candidate the Democratic Party offers in order to defeat George W. Bush.

More and more as Election Day approaches, we will hear, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." Democrats will insist that now is not the time to stand on principle, that the stakes are too high to be distracted by idealism. They will call for unified opposition to the current president without regard for the policies of their candidate. But supporting Kerry simply because he is deemed electable and less odious than Bush only encourages the Democrats' abandonment of progressive principles.

Like smokers waiting for an easier time to quit, we may avoid short-term pain at the peril of encouraging a growing cancer. There is no easy time to stand up for one's beliefs, but there is no inappropriate time either. If we abandon hope and allow ourselves to be motivated by fear, then we are resigned to casting truly wasted votes: those surrendered to candidates we don't believe in.

Mr. Kerry blind-sided by Kirkpatrick...

Washington Times:

At one point during yesterday's town hall meeting, Mr. Kerry seemed to be blind-sided when audience member Bob Kirkpatrick asked him about U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians.

As Mr. Kirkpatrick said the U.S. must change "our shameful treatment of the Palestinians," Mr. Kerry nodded his head. But Mr. Kerry took issue with the man's statement that Israel is a theocracy, not a democracy.

"We're going to support Israel because Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, has a special relationship with the United States, is struggling for survival, is under attack," Mr. Kerry said.

After the event, Mr. Kirkpatrick said he agrees with Mr. Kerry on just about every other issue, but he still doesn't know if he will support Mr. Kerry in November because of the Palestinian question.

"It's going to be four more years as usual," he said, adding that he had expected Mr. Kerry to answer as he did, and asking the question was a way to get Mr. Kerry on the record.

"I wanted to have him say it in public," Mr. Kirkpatrick said, who during a follow-up question said Israel "has too much control over Congress," which is subservient to that nation's interests.

Mr. Kerry responded: "I disagree with you then. I don't believe we are subservient, I'm not subservient, and I'm not going to be subservient to anybody."

Also read:

"The Cause of Israel is the Cause of America"
By John Kerry

"An Unwavering Commitment To Reforming the Middle East"

By John Kerry

Nader Continues to Urge Peace in the Middle East

Friday, September 17, 2004

The two headed animal

The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Courtesy of Khalil Bendib, all rights reserved.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Kerry should be clear: We are not defending our country by our war in Iraq, and we should get out.

rainbow peace banners in Battery Park

Noted historian, and author of A People's History of United States, Howard Zinn has said that Kerry must have the courage to call for an end to the occupation of Iraq.

If John Kerry wants to win, he must recognize that our military intervention in Iraq is a disaster -- for Americans, for Iraqis, for the world. He must stop boasting about his courage in Vietnam and instead start talking about his moral courage in opposing that war.

He was not defending this country when he fought in Vietnam. He was defending this country when he said that we were wrong to be in Vietnam and we should get out.

He should not be saying that he will wage the Iraq War better, that he will replace U.S. troops with soldiers from other countries. If it is immoral for our soldiers to be occupying Iraq and killing Iraqis every day, then it is immoral for foreign soldiers to do the same.

He should be clear: We are not defending our country by our war in Iraq, and we should get out.

Read more here

But Kerry, same as Bush - will not listen, that is obvious from the way he has run away from the peace movement.

This November, vote for peace, vote against the war, vote against occupations, Vote for Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo. Read their call for withdrawl from Iraq. End the occupation!

A vote for Kerry is a vote for war

IF JOHN Kerry loses the presidential election, future historians may point to one moment when his fate was sealed. And no, it wasn’t when Ralph Nader announced he was running for president. The moment was Kerry’s answer to a question that Bush posed right before the Republican National Convention.

Knowing what he knows now, Bush asked, would Kerry have voted in favor of the congressional resolution giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq? And John Kerry--the hope of so many opponents of Bush’s war--stepped right up and declared: Yes. Read on...

Why vote for Nader if he won’t win?

"FOR MANY people who agree with Ralph Nader on the issues, there’s still a nagging doubt about whether a vote for his independent presidential campaign is wasted. After all, Nader can’t win the 2004 election. And if he can’t win right now, goes the argument, why vote for him? More to the point, why not vote for John Kerry, as a short-term measure that would at least get George Bush off our necks for the next four years?

John Kerry may support the occupation of Iraq and Israel’s occupation of Palestine. He may have voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. But since Nader won’t beat Bush or Kerry, doesn’t it make sense to vote for the "lesser evil" Democrat and then start protesting the day after the elections?

Our answer is no--whether the question is looked at in the short term or the long term. To begin with, progressive support for John Kerry--and the complicity of many leading left voices in the Democrats’ all-out war on Nader--is doing damage right now to the left. Read on...

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Oppose the war - not just Bush

While important strides have been made against the war in Iraq - the "anybody but bush" illness is taking a rapid toll on the anti-war movement. Our movement was never meant to be against personalities - it was always about being against a war policy. A change in personalities is not going to end war - we must create a movement that is for justice and peace. And we must move away from the silliness of "anybody but bush."

Ron Jacobs writes in Counterpunch:

Why is the antiwar movement in disarray? The most obvious answer is the Anybody But Bush phenomenon. The personalization of the war around George Bush has created a misguided belief among many people who oppose the war and the imperial drive it represents that this war will somehow end if Bush and his cohorts are given their walking papers.

The Republicans have their Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The Democrats have their own take on how to maintain and expand the Empire. It is a plan that they call Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.

the Democrats' document places the war on the world in terms that are not much different than the GOP's Project for a New American Century. This one quote from the forward says it all: "Democrats will maintain the world's most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to defend our interests anywhere in the world."

The politicians are unable to think in terms that transcend their paymasters, no matter how much they would like to. If we allow the agenda to be set by their politics and elections, we will fail. It is up to us to create a popular momentum that those in power cannot ignore. Only then will they feel secure enough to look beyond their corporate masters and actually do what the people want them to.

Read Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo's call for withdrawl from Iraq. End the occupation!

Why The West is Losing the War on Terror

As Bush/Kerry call for more troops and eye Iran - a senior terrorism analyst at the CIA has very different thoughts. Senior officials at the CIA normally wait until retirement to write books, but maybe he felt an urgency in the times...

Toronto Sun:

Three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, America's politicians and media continue to gravely deceive the public about the so-called war on terrorism.

Now the definitive book on terrorism has appeared that should be mandatory reading for every thinking person. It's called Imperial Hubris: Why The West is Losing the War on Terror.

The cover simply identifies the author as "Anonymous," but he's already been widely identified in the American media as Michael Scheuer, a senior terrorism analyst for the CIA.

It is unprecedented that a serving CIA officer was allowed to publish a book, one that is clearly a dramatic rebuke to the neoconservatives who drove the U.S. into two wars.

Scheuer's work is a goldmine of information and brilliant analysis. It breaks taboos and sweeps away the clouds of lies about al-Qaida, Iraq and Afghanistan. He says U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious -- "we are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency -- not criminality or terrorism."

The U.S. has made only "a modest dent in enemy forces."

None of bin Laden's reasons for waging war on the U.S., writes Scheuer, "have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy (as President George Bush claims), but everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world," notably unlimited support for Israel's repression of the Palestinians and the destruction of Iraq.

"For cheap, easily accessible oil, Washington and the West have supported Muslim tyrannies (Osama) bin Laden and other Islamists seek to destroy," Scheuer writes. "The war has the potential to last beyond our children's lifetimes and be fought mostly on U.S. soil." Read on...

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Republicans and Democrats both use 9/11 to justify war

The tragic events of 9/11/01 have no doubt changed many of our lives. However, this tragedy is not something that should be used to justify attacking and killing innocent people worldwide, not in our name.

The duopoly of Republicans and Democrats have once again used the day to justify their wars - specifically their wars on the Iraqi and Afghani people.

Stephen Zunes writes:

      On the eve of the third anniversary of 9/11, the U.S. House of Representatives – by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 406-16 – passed a resolution linking Iraq to the Al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This comes despite conclusions reached by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and the consensus of independent strategic analysis familiar with the region that no such links ever existed

      The single most misleading clause in the House resolution claims that “the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies.” This charge was originally raised by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his February 2003 speech before the United Nations and has long since been discredited.

      In short, it appears that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any qualms about taking advantage of the anniversary of one of the greatest disasters ever inflicted upon our soil in order to justify the ongoing violence inflicted upon the people of Iraq and upon American soldiers forced to fight there. That these two parties are the only realistic choices we have on a national level this election year is not just a tragedy for the people of Iraq, but a sad testament to the state of American democracy.

      The 16 who voted against this resolution included Dennis Kucinich, and Barbara Lee. Thank You! While Dennis's run did not result in any change in the Democratic Party's platform - it is good to see that he continues to stand his ground. And the wonderful Barbara Lee - I am lucky and happy to live in her district.

      Read Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo's call for withdrawl from Iraq. End the occupation!

      New Account of Abu Ghraib...

      Pulitzer prize-winning reporter Seymour Hersh joins us in our firehouse studio to talk about his new book, Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. The book takes a look behind the public story of President Bush's "war on terror" and into the lies and obsessions that led America into Iraq. Hersh provides a new account of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal that he exposed last spring and of where, he believes, responsibility for the scandal ultimately lies.

      Watch 256k Stream

      John Kerry Dodges the Press

      Joshua Frank...

      "When Israel ended a six-month lull in violence by striking a suspected Hamas training camp in Gaza and killing 14 with a U.S.-built Apache helicopter in response to the September 2 suicide bombings, Kerry did not take one question. Nor did he speak with the press corps when Israeli occupation forces destroyed two large apartment buildings south of Gaza in Khan Younis, leaving nearly 100 Palestinians homeless. But perhaps Kerry’s most appalling act of silence came on September 7 when the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq reached 1,000 and Kerry declined to chat with the media." Read on...

      Nader in Michigan


      ...Nader favors knowledge and thought: it was really refreshing to hear someone who tells things straight and assumes intelligence on the part of his listeners. His basic message throughout was: think for yourself; come to your own conclusions. This entails effort and energy, in order to be informed about what is happening in the world, and a critical mindset to fend off the stultifying and patronizing efforts of the two major parties and the mainstream media. Being a good citizen is hard work. What is really impressive is not so much what Nader said--which is after all the same stuff he's been saying for 40 years--but the manner in which his speaking reflects his message: he treats his audience as if they were adults.

      ...With all of the recent talk about accountability (for Abu Ghraib, for intelligence lapses, for Enron, etc.), Nader expects his listeners to be accountable: if we all parrot what he says, and then do nothing, we are perpetuating the empty rhetoric of the two parties...

      ...There were ten questioners who managed to speak in the allotted time, of whom three were democratic hecklers. Among the others was a Palestinian woman who asked how it could be that there were not already millions of people backing him, given his clear position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. (Nader said that that was precisely his question too.)

      To the question, What can African-Americans ask of Kerry to make him take into account their presence?, Nader replied: That he could have the Democrats go out and register the 9 million African-Americans who are unregistered and eligible to vote; 90% will vote Democrat and that's the election right there.

      Would he stop funding Israel in order to resolve the Palestinian issue? Absolutely: you can't be impartial and help one side. Moreover, Israel is not only in good financial shape, it has universal health care for its citizens, and should therefore probably be doling out aid to the US, rather than the reverse...

      ...His handling of the hecklers, however, was even more interesting. The first was a middle-aged man who trotted out the story of republicans collecting signatures to get Nader/Camejo on the Michigan ballot. The man lathered himself into a froth and Nader had to cut in, saying that the facts were simply wrong, and then explained the legal machinations that were involved. He then asked the man if he thought he (Nader) should be on the ballot, to which the man replied: As long as you follow the established guidelines. Nader let this pass (One of his issues is precisely electoral reform.) and the man kept talking. Finally Nader tried asking: Are you a democrat? four or five times, until the guy said 'yes', at which point Nader replied: Good, vote for John Kerry. The guy left in a huff and probably did not understand that the remark was more than simply a dismissal: Nader is campaigning for fairness, honesty and choice; if you want to vote for Kerry, then go ahead. But if you want to vote for Nader, you should have that option too, and the democrats should not try to take away your choice.

      Nader did not try to convince anyone that what he said was right, he presented his views; there were no vague statements such as 'I'm going to do the right thing for America', there were concrete positions and solutions, stated matter-of-factly. It's there for you to take and contemplate or throw out the window. And this is a frightening notion. If you say, 'I'm going to do the right thing for America', you don't really have to do anything; but if you say: 'I'm going to pull US troops out of Iraq in six months, to be replaced by an international force that oversees free elections and not a puppet government', then you actually have to do something. Nader assumes that you're an adult and are capable of seeing this distinction. It's up to you to choose the person you think is best.

      Nader's thought-provoking approach was most evident with the last questioner, a young guy with a Kerry pin, maybe 20 years old, obviously a student. The kid chose the Florida vote-count as his bone to pick with Nader, and Nader, after hearing him out, said: 'There were ten times as many democrats who left Gore and voted for Bush than left Gore and voted for me.' He then proceeded to enumerate the other 'what-ifs' from the 2000 election and, looking straight at the kid, asked: 'Have you ever considered these things? You're blinded by the democratic propaganda; I know why you're here, but think about it. Don't pick on a third party, don't single out one 'what-if'; ask the democratic party what it's doing to win the election.' The kid was terrified, but it's just possible, with his gumption and good-will, that he will think about those things and maybe come to his own conclusions.

      Nader has the guts to anger his listeners by taking them seriously, challenging them to think, rather than flattering their ignorance with empty slogans. No wonder Kerry and Bush want to exclude him from the 'debates': not only can he field any question (And we know that Kerry has difficulty with even the easiest ones.), he asks a whole lot more in his answers.

      Vote Nader to Effect Change

      Daily Californian:

      As we approach the most important election of our lives (which is what everyone seems to be calling it), we students should remember that one candidate:

      • Supports the invasion of Iraq and the continuing occupation, and wants to send more young men and women there to get the job done right, adding to the looming specter of the draft;

      • Only wants minor revisions to the Patriot Act, which allows the authorities to snoop through our student records, check up on what we’ve been reading in the library, and spy on international students;

      • Opposes the right of some of us to marry the person we love, depending on if that person is the same sex or not;

      • Wants to continue to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the military and corporate tax breaks while our tuition skyrockets and services are cut;

      • Fully supports Israel’s continued brutal repression of the Palestinian people, including the Apartheid wall.

      His opponent, of course, is George W. Bush.

      Fellow students, we’ve been duped. We’ve been told our entire lives that the Democratic Party represents us. Unlike the evil, fire-breathing Republicans, the Democrats don’t want to send us off to war, want more money for education, actually care about the environment, and all the rest.

      Unfortunately, none of this reflects reality in any serious way.

      Fundamentally, John Kerry represents the same people as George W. Bush. He may do it in a different way, and he certainly does it with different rhetoric, but warmongers and bigots with smiley faces and comforting slogans are still warmongers and bigots.

      The vast majority of people who vote for Kerry come November are not either of these things. They are voting for him not because they agree with him, but because, understandably, they see it as a vote against Bush, not a vote for Kerry.

      There is an alternative this fall, though, and you may have heard of him.

      With Ralph Nader running for president, we have an opportunity to vote for someone with whom we agree. We can cast a vote against Bush, the war, the anti-gay marriage bigotry, the tuition hikes, the draft, the racist scapegoating—and we can do it at the same time that we vote for more money for education, a living wage, national health care, and so much more. READ ON...

      Monday, September 13, 2004

      Nader back in Florida!

      Scott Maddox you son of a Kabullah. You dug deep into your dirty-money-coffers to fight our man Nader's access to voters in the state of Florida. Maybe you should get out of bed with the GOP before going Jim Crow on Ralph... You could have gotten Bush of the ballot... LEGALLY!!!
      (but lets not anger Karl Rove...)

      Miami Herald:

      Ralph Nader is back.

      Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood put the consumer crusader back on Florida's presidential ballot this afternoon.

      A state judge had temporarily booted Nader off the ballot last week, but that decision is under appeal and Hood moved today to appeal the temporary injunction -- in effect staying the judge's order.

      In a letter to elections supervisors, state elections director Dawn Roberts said she was forced to act because of uncertainty surrounding when the courts will decide, given the impending approach of Hurricane Ivan. And she noted, supervisors must postmark overseas ballots by Saturday.

      ''This action is taken to bring about a final resolution as quickly as possible,'' Roberts told elections supervisors, noting that although the courts may not reach a final decision soon, ``at the moment at which you must make a final determination to meet your printing deadlines you should proceed with printing the ballot as certified by the department at that time.''

      Attorneys for the Democrats were seeking an emergency hearing late Monday to have Hood's order dissolved.

      Buchanan blasts conservatives...

      "the Buchanan approach to Israel is of a piece with his general tilt toward the ideas of the left-wing. Much has been written about Buchanan's views on Israel and its supporters in the U.S. Yet it should be pointed out that he is better depicted not as an opponent of Israel 's right to exist but as a supporter of the Israeli left. Just as parties of a leftist tilt in Israel believe that the Jewish state must make deep-seated compromises to achieve peace with the Arab world, so has Buchanan castigated successive right-of-center Israeli leaders and their American "amen corner" for their "intransigence." On Bill Maher's show, he slammed Bush for "outsourcing American Middle East policy to [Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon." Similarly, Nader, in his interview with Buchanan, decried the "subservience of our congressional and White House puppets to Israeli military policy." Thus, like much of the Israeli and American left, Buchanan believes that America should strongly pressure Israel into negotiating a settlement with its Palestinian interlocutors." Read Full...

      Tariq Ramadan & Muslim Women's Rights!

      On Democracy Now!

      -Iraqi Activist Yanar Mohammed - "U.S. Troops Have To Leave Now And We Will Take Care Of Iraq."

      -The U.S. Government revoked a work visa for Tariq Ramadan, one of the world's most important Muslim scholars, to teach at the University of Notre Dame. We go to Switzerland to speak with Tariq Ramadan and we hear from the director of the Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame that appointed Ramadan.

      -Afghan Women's Rights Activist and Loya Jirga Member Malalai Joya Discusses Continuing Violence and Upcoming Elections in Afghanistan.

      Watch 256k Stream

      Bush team 'knew of abuse' at Guantánamo

      Evidence of prisoner abuse and possible war crimes at Guantánamo Bay reached the highest levels of the Bush administration as early as autumn 2002, but Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, chose to do nothing about it, according to a new investigation published exclusively in the Guardian today. Read On...

      Sunday, September 12, 2004

      The Kerry melt down: The fish stinks from the head

      The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

      While the Anybody but Bush crowd, and their cronies in the Democratic Part are busy subverting the Nader/Camejo campaign - guess who they forgot all about? Kerry seems to keep on going down and down and down... even ultra loyal Democrats such as Jesse Jackson are growling at Kerry, things must be really bad:

      on CNN's Inside Politics, Jesse Jackson delivered a blistering attack on the Kerry campaign for running away from the Democratic base and the issues it cares about.

      Jesse sneered at the inadequacy of the Kerry campaign's much-publicized "shakeup" and its whitebread, retread Clintonista imports, snarling that "it can't be just a vanilla shake." (Jesse's comments were notable for the vehemence of his tone and rhetoric,

      And check out the big huge corporations running Kerry's campaign (you really think they care a hoot about you?)

      ... the lobbyist who has the most clout within the Kerry campaign is the candidate's own brother, Cameron. Cam Kerry's Boston law-lobbying shop -- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo -- advertises communications law among its areas of expertise and lobbies on behalf of wireless-industry clients such as AT&T Wireless Service, XO Communications Inc. and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association

      <>Ultimately, though, the old Sicilian saying has never been truer than as a diagnosis
      of what's wrong with the Kerry campaign: the fish stinks from the head.

      Read more here

      Democrats: Lick GOP boots...say taste has improved...

      Democrats have sunk to a new all time low. After using every trick in the Nixon play-book on Nader/Camejo supporters... we arrive in battle ground Florida...

      TALLAHASSEE - After the Florida election fiasco of 2000, the most obscure parts of state election law keep attracting attention.

      The latest effort to disqualify Ralph Nader as a presidential candidate in Florida has led to renewed scrutiny of papers filed by other candidates - including President Bush.

      State law sets a Sept. 1 deadline for the governor to certify a list of presidential electors for each party's candidates.

      But Sept. 1 was also the day President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were being nominated at their party' convention in New York. Consequently, some of their paperwork did not arrive at state elections headquarters until Sept. 2, a day after Gov. Jeb Bush certified the candidates for president.

      Paperwork problem?

      No, says Secretary of State Glenda Hood's office.

      Spokeswoman Jenny Nash said Friday the law is clear: The deadline applies to the governor and the list of presidential electors, not to the candidates themselves. The list of Republican electors released by Hood's office does not show a time stamp indicating when the document was received by the state.

      Democrats said they aren't so sure, but they won't challenge the Bush campaign's papers.

      Florida Democratic Party chairman Scott Maddox said he knew the president's certificate of nomination did not reach the state until Sept. 2, but he said he decided not to make an issue of it.

      "To keep an incumbent president off the ballot in a swing state the size of Florida because of a technicality, I just don't think would be right," Maddox said.

      Nader's Reform Party candidacy in Florida is much different, Maddox said.

      "There is no Reform Party. It is a sham. And Ralph Nader was using a hoax party to gain access to the ballot," Maddox said.

      But Julia Aires, a Green Party activist from Sarasota who has watched Democrats and others battle to keep Nader's name off the ballot, said a minor party probably could not have gotten away with the same thing.

      "If the Green Party or the Reform Party had not gotten their names in by Sept. 1 and they said, "You missed the deadline,' I don't think we'd have a leg to stand on," she said. "They would have kept us off the ballot on a technicality if they could have."

      Circuit Judge P. Kevin Davey in Tallahassee agreed with the Democrats and others who had filed suit seeking to keep Nader off the ballot. Davey ordered the state to keep Nader's name off the ballot, though his order applies only to about 50,000 overseas absentee ballots set to go in the mail next week.

      The judge ruled that the Reform Party "fails in almost every conceivable criteria of what constitutes a national party."

      Nader, running mate Peter Camejo and the Reform Party filed an appeal of that decision Friday, asking the First District Court of Appeal to suspend Davey's order pending a full review of the case. Full...
      What 'criteria' is that? Last I checked Reform Party was in 4th place - after the Green Party.

      Wonder why the judge didn't question the smaller yet Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Natural Law Party, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Party USA, Workers World Party?

      If you are shocked or stunned the DNC is making concessions for the GOP -- I take you back to more stunning case - August 6th, 2004, where the RNC date would keep Bush off the NY ballot, until guess who saved the day:

      "This all-out effort against Nader stands in stark contrast to the way that state Democrats made sure that George W. Bush was on the ballot. The late date of this year's Republican Party convention meant that Bush would not be able to meet a state deadline requiring that the official nominee be named by August 30.

      So Democrats, led by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, helped pass an amendment allowing an exception for Bush. It’s enough to make you wonder who the Democrats are really running harder against: Bush or Nader?" read full...

      Disgusting. Democratic Jim-Crow methods to keep minority voices and choices off the ballot, while amendments and concessions are made in favor of the GOP.

      Peter Camejo pointed out not one Democrat Senator stood up to aid disenfranchised African American voters in Florida - not even Joe Lieberman. They gave the GOP 13 standing ovations, voted for their wars, destroyed our civil liberties...

      "You know the lesson of history? If you're not turned on to politics. The lesson in history is... politics will turn on you..." -- Ralph Nader --

      Watch the fab GNN video... Get involved!!!