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, October 09, 2004

What If Nader Critics Get What They Demand?

If you cut away the swipes at Nader, his progressive critics actually have some legitimate demands:

1. They don't want Nader voters to swing the election to Bush.

2. Progressives want to be building a movement and therefore don't see the point of Nader running as an independent. And they also prefer a party working on a mix of local and national runs, not just a celebrity running for president.

3. The Democratic Party claims they just want Nader to follow the rules and get on the ballot fairly. Others, while seeing the Democratic Party's self-interest in the matter, just don't see the point of running a campaign that seems little more than a slog against arcane ballot access laws. Ballot access is an important issue, but the resources Nader and company are being forced to expend on it, even if that is the fault of the Democrats, detracts from getting out the progressive political message.

Frankly, I don't think these demands are unreasonable. What if they are met? Read on...

Nader Challenges Michael Moore to a Debate

Who Should the Anti-War Movement Vote for in 2004?

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader today challenged film-maker Michael Moore to debate the question of which Presidential candidate the anti-war movement should support in November.

Nader proposes that the debate with Moore take place in Tempe, AZ, prior to the final Presidential debate on Wednesday, Oct. 13. “Since Bush and Kerry will not debate a plan to end our involvement in this quagmire, Michael should join me in giving the American people a deep and thoughtful discussion of how to avoid the quagmire that looms before us.”

Michael Moore has stood by as the anti-war movement has morphed into a pro-Kerry movement. Secure in the knowledge that the anti-war movement has lost its integrity, Kerry has moved to leapfrog Bush, becoming the supreme war-hawk in this campaign. In the first debate, Kerry proclaimed that he would “win the war in Iraq,” pledged to send more American troops to do it, and criticized Bush for having pulled back from the assault on Falluja in the face of large civilian casualties already from American bombs.

The nation’s premier right-wing columnist, William Safire, wrote in the New York Times on Oct. 4th, that Kerry had become the “newest neo-conservative,” and was now “more hawkish than President Bush.”

“The Nader/Camejo campaign continues to stand against this war,” said Nader. “America should immediately declare a phased withdrawal of our military and corporate forces over the next 6 months, which will cause the bottom to drop out of the insurgency. Once mainstream Iraqis know they are getting their country back, they will have no reason to support the insurgency and the focus will immediately become how the Iraqis will work out their own affairs. The world should be prepared to assist with supervised elections, humanitarian aid, and with providing temporary peace-keeping forces from neutral nations to help the Iraqis settle their own affairs.”

Just before the Iraq war the New York Times called the anti-war movement the world’s second super-power. Now, all that the movement has predicted has come to pass in Iraq, yet rather than being empowered by its vindication, the movement has no pulse except one of unconditional surrender to Kerry. The time is short, the need is great. We must breathe a renewed dynamism into our movement. As Fredrick Douglass said in the pre-civil war years, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.”

What say you, Michael? Don’t you want them to trust you again?

Nader on Chomsky, Zinn, Goodman Et. Al.

Ralph Nader just cleared the political card table, decking our house of cards onto America’s filthy floor. All hands must now be shown.

I highly recommend that readers study the transcript available on, (or video) which has the full Amy Goodman interview with Ralph Nader. The exquisite personal comment that Ralph directs at Progressive’s Hostess With The Mostest—making her emblematic of the average/wanting citizen—is not the only gem. There’s the watershed talk about Chomsky and Zinn putting “a figurative ring in their nose.” And more.

I’m sure that most progressive outlets will not make much of a fuss about Ralph’s historically important characterization of The Left at this juncture...out of habit. But, nonetheless, he’s on the mark. A new mark has been made with our distinguished progressives agreeing to be led by the likes of Kerry. It’s over. There’s officially no more democracy. Read on...

Captain David Cobb Aids the Collapse of the Left

By Joshua Frank

I officially changed my voter registration and left the Green Party this past week. Or, more aptly put, the Green Party left me. Actually, they abandoned many of us last summer when they decided not to run a candidate for president.

Oh, I know what you are thinking: “They are running a candidate. His name’s David Cobb. Give the guy some respect!” My rejoinder: If David Cobb is a presidential candidate, then why have an oppositional party that is supposed to challenge the Democrats and Republicans at all? What good is it? For me, it is not that the legitimacy of Cobb’s nomination is suspect—although it is. Rather, what I find bothersome is the way that Cobb has chosen to run his insipid campaign and the cultish drones within the Green Party who refuse to acknowledge that Cobb’s bid is actually hurting the Party—and the Left—while aiding George W. Bush’s re-election in the process. Ignorance must be bliss. Read on...

Bush the Lesser Evil? For Some Issues, It Is Worth Considering

...Bush and Clinton are virtually indistinguishable on many other noteworthy issues as well. Palestine and Israel for starters. Some people argue that Bush has actually been tougher on Israel than Clinton was. Bush has even admitted that Palestine should be its own state, which drew jeers from Ariel Sharon himself. Although Bush’s concession remains a far cry from a unified territory, where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side as envisioned by the late Palestinian professor and activist Edward Said, it’s still a start. Will Bush aid Palestinians or halt funding to the Israelis? Definitely not. But Kerry certainly won’t either. And therein lies the harsh truth.

What about Iraq? That’s the last straw for most, who simply do not want to believe that a Democratic administration could have attacked Iraq under false pretenses. Never mind the fact that the Democrats authorized bombings throughout Clinton’s tenure and passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, giving the U.S. the right to whack the country for the slightest provocation—or no reason at all. It is also worth mentioning that the Democrats overwhelmingly supported Bush’s invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, it’s hard to imagine the Democrats doing things any differently if they won back the White House.

The Patriot Act? This of course, was a bipartisan nightmare based on the assumption that curtailing civil liberties would make the U.S. safe from terror. Given that Clinton had a version of his own following the Oklahoma City bombing called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, there is little reason to believe the Democrats would not have moved forward with a more egregious version following 9-11, with their mass support for John Ashcroft’s version as our conspicuous souvenir. Read on...

Friday, October 08, 2004

Complacency Is Not Democracy

By Ralph Nader
Washington Post

I've been receiving lots of drearily similar advice from members of the liberal intelligentsia over the past year, so perhaps this is an appropriate time to graciously give some counsel in return.

Rather than addressing their demands for my withdrawal from exercising my right to speak and assemble -- that is, the core of running for elective office -- I offer these words to advance their more responsible engagement in recovering their beloved, corporate-indentured Democratic Party. I suggest the following steps toward recovery: Read on...

How Israel is winning the debate!

During the supposed debate between Cheny and Edwards - the question about Israel-Palestine was answered by both candidates without one word of empathy on the suffering of the Palestinians. While Edwards recalls his experience of a bombing in Israel (and we should not be without empathy towards loss of Israeli lives, I agree) -but not a word about the Palestinian children who get killed by the Israelis.

Such a dis-honest form of brokerage is hardly a recipe for peace!

First some excerpts from the Edwards/Cheney "debate" on Palestine, - and then brief excerpts from a couple of recent articles on this issue:

Q: But what would your (Kerry) administration do to try to resolve that conflict?

Read more here

Thursday, October 07, 2004

“Bush-Lite” or Marlboro-Lights?

By Omar Barghouti

"...Palestinians like me are not betting their lives on the prospects for progress under Kerry. After all, he has already come out on record in unqualified support of Israel’s apartheid wall, colonies in the occupied territories and all the other grave violations of international law. Even under an analytical microscope, one would be hard pressed to identify the “lite” part when it comes to Israel. And this comes as no surprise. Israel has effectively secured a position of unparalleled influence over the US administration, especially as far as foreign policy towards the middle east is concerned. This is now a built-in feature of the system that will take far more than a mere change in the presidency to alter it. Moreover, Kerry, unlike Bush, may actually be able to win considerable European and international backing for essentially the same biased policy, and that would make him worse, in fact.

Lite is not always bright, it seems." Read on...

Nader Supporters Around the Nation!


"...A question and answer session was enlivened by a Ralph Nader supporter who held up a mock subpoena summoning Cheney to answer questions on Halliburton, the Houston-based energy and construction company he formerly headed. Democrats have said the Bush administration showed favoritism in giving Halliburton noncompetitive contracts in Iraq and elsewhere.

She was quickly drowned out by shouts of 'four more years' as the crowd rose and she was ushered from the room."


"The Republi-crats don't get it. They're all liars," a Nader supporter shouted. He repeatedly bellowed out "creeps!"


"Albert, 78, a staunch Nader supporter... "They're both equally bad," Albert Prince said. "What they both should do, in my opinion, is admit the war was a mistake and bring the troops home tomorrow."


"Two Ralph Nader supporters waved banners from the second level of the stands - stopping Moore mid-sentence as they yelled: A vote for Nader will get the United States out of the war in Iraq in six months.

Moore began to joke around about the disrupters as police gathered around the banner-wavers.

But when the Nader supporters did not stop screaming, Moore responded, “Would you shut the F--k up!”

New Jersey...

"I'm just going to vote for the best guy," said musician Brett Boye of Atlantic Highlands, who gave $225 to Nader in July.

Several Nader supporters said their stance is not just about backing someone who vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq and who has butted heads with corporate America. And it's not just because they see little difference in the policy positions of Bush and Kerry.

What motivates some of them is that they want to make it easier for third-party candidates such as Nader to be on the ballot and participate in the presidential debates.

"I don't care about George Bush and John Kerry. What I care about is the future of politics in America," said Kevin Gemmell, a director of a Philadelphia technology consulting firm who lives in Swedesboro. "I just don't feel as though the politicians really are looking at anything but the present election or putting their party in charge."

Kerry "will not pull troops out of Iraq. He will not give us a national health-care system," DeCarlo said. "If people are being lulled into thinking that he is a liberal and humanitarian, they're sadly mistaken."

Monday, October 04, 2004

Here he comes: The New Neo-Con!

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

William Safire on Kerry:

WASHINGTON As the Democratic Whoopee Brigade hailed Senator John Kerry’s edge in debating technique, nobody noticed his foreign policy saw a change. On both military tactics and grand strategy, the newest neoconservative announced doctrines more hawkish than President George W. Bush.


‘What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground,’’ Kerry volunteered. ‘‘And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of Falluja and other places and send the wrong message to terrorists. You’ve got to show you’re serious.’’ Right on, John! Although he added his standard softener of ‘‘sharing the stakes’’ with ‘‘the rest of the world,’’ he issued his radically revised military policy: Wipe out resistance in terrorist strongholds like Falluja, which requires America to inflict and accept higher casualties.


in embracing his right to pre-empt — always derided in horror by the two-minutes-to-midnight crowd as impermissible ‘‘preventive war’’ — Kerry felt the need to interject: ‘‘That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.’’

Hold on. Nuclear pre-emption was never America’s ‘‘great doctrine’’ during confrontation with the Soviets. Washington’s strategic doctrine, which some of us remember, was at first ‘‘massive retaliation,’’ later ‘‘mutual assured destruction.’’ Maybe arms control negotiators listed pre-emption or preventive war as a dangerous notion of extremists, but only kooks portrayed by the likes of Peter Sellers called for a nuclear final solution to the Communist problem.
Read complete article here

Click here to read more on nuclear proliferation and preemption

This is the candidate of the "Anybody But Bush" crowd! Why in the world would any thinking, intelligent person with half a conscience vote for this guy?

There is only candidate who deserves your vote:

Ralph Nader on Democracy Now!

Nader Charges DNC Chair McAuliffe Told Him "We're Going To Try To Get You Off The Ballot In All Of The Close States"

Listen to An extensive conversation with independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader about why he has chosen to stay in the presidential race and about the allegations that he is taking support from GOP operatives.

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader said last week that he will continue his campaigning in many of the key states being canvassed by Bush and Kerry. This week, he is traveling around the swing states of Maine and New Hampshire. Since he announced his bid for the White House, Nader has been attacked by the Democrats as a spoiler whose candidacy will aid Bush in his reelection effort. Nader has spent most of his campaigns time and resources fighting legal battles to get on the ballot. As it stands, Nader is on the ballot in 33 states with legal battles in 3 more.

Nader recently held a press conference in Washington at the National Press Club in which he accused the Democratic Party of orchestrating a campaign of dirty tricks against him. This past weekend, I had a chance to sit down with Ralph Nader in Washington DC for an extensive conversation about why he has chosen to stay in the race and about the allegations that he is taking support from GOP operatives.

here to listen