a GOP group is airing pro-Nader ads in critical battleground states in which he is threatening a gore victory.
October 27, 2000 1:01 PM   Subscribe

Make sure you read all the way to the end, where you'll be treated to this gem:

Miller added that some of Nader’s supporters have bragged that Nader has never had help from “soft money,” the unrestricted donations used by parties and interest groups.

“We’ll put an end to that,” Miller said.

Totally. Fucking. Evil.
posted by fraying at 2:00 PM on October 27, 2000

That's the LOP (lame Old Party) for you. Evil.
posted by terrapin at 2:13 PM on October 27, 2000

Can you really count selective quotation of Nader's statements as fair use? Because if I were him, I'd be minded to sue the fuckers.
posted by holgate at 2:13 PM on October 27, 2000

Now I've seen it all.
posted by snakey at 2:20 PM on October 27, 2000

"A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches."

I don't understand this quote. How can Nader really have no control over people using his words, speeches and image? Anyone know?

This is a new low for the Republicans thats for sure.
posted by saralovering at 2:27 PM on October 27, 2000

How is this any different than the Democrats using John McCain's comments to criticize GWB?
posted by gyc at 2:30 PM on October 27, 2000

gyc: Oh, for starters, McCain's a Republican (hell, he's campaigning on Bush's behalf these days), but Nader's no Democrat.
posted by allaboutgeorge at 2:49 PM on October 27, 2000

Let's dissolve the country and start over!
That said, isn't this pretty much normal in campaigns? I've seen spots where the democrats bring up quotes made by loser republican primary candidates and vice-versa. I imagine it will become commonplace if third parties catch on. It seems like it is begging for the dems to run the rest of the quotes from Nader's speeches. Is MasterCard sponsoring this in anyway?
Fraying: Do you understand that quote? Why would Nader be tempted to use "soft money" after this? It sounded like he was an art director making sinister statements. I don't get it.
posted by thirteen at 2:54 PM on October 27, 2000

The idea behind "soft money" is that is spent by some group other than the candidate's campaign committee, usually on "issue ads" that don't give an explicit endorsement of the candidate, but which champion the candidate's issues. In theory, the candidate himself has no responsibility for the money being spent on his behalf, and therefore it doesn't count against his spending limits. This may very well be the first occasion ever in which the candidate had absolutely nothing to do with the money being spent on his behalf. "Evil" is right.
posted by harmful at 3:03 PM on October 27, 2000

Thanks Harmful. Anybody else seeing a George Bush/Your future president banner at the top of the linked page? Kinda creepy.
posted by thirteen at 3:16 PM on October 27, 2000

Using quotes: All statements made in public are fair to use or refute. That’s why you see Gore in Bush commercials and vice versa.

13: Miller was saying that Nader has never accepted soft money, but since this commercial is payed for by just that, then Nader is accepting soft money by proxy. You might see this brought up in 2004. Possibly. “Yes, Mr. Nader, but the Republicans ran ads in your name in 2000. Just how liberal are you?”

Republicans: If they need to stoop to effectively giving an opposing campaign a couple hundred grand they must be desperate.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 3:28 PM on October 27, 2000

If you, like me, are having trouble watching MSNBC's Windows Media version of the ad, you can get a Realplayer version at rlcnet.org/multimedia -- I should say that you could get a copy if they hadn't named the .RAM file using a space in the name! Any other media outlets offering non-MS digital copies?
posted by rschram at 3:31 PM on October 27, 2000

I just zipped-off a request to AdCritic to get their hands on a copy.

Maybe there'll be something up by Monday...

posted by silusGROK at 3:38 PM on October 27, 2000

I watched the ad, and it doesn't really put Nader in the best light as much as it attacks Gore. In this ad, Nader comes off as just another talking head, not a candidate for president.

Ah well, at least this ad might make people question Gore's environmental stance a bit.
posted by snakey at 3:48 PM on October 27, 2000

Y'know, before today, it never occured to me what the consequences of pinning the MS onto NBC. Sucks to be stuck with NPRLinux
posted by rschram at 3:51 PM on October 27, 2000

On the other hand, Nader is going to be totally villified by the Democratic party. They are going to squelch him as much as possible in 2004. This is, potentially, ammunition in their attempt.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 4:02 PM on October 27, 2000

this is weird: when you click on the link now, it's a different article, but related still to soft money tv advertisments. WTF?
posted by palegirl at 4:17 PM on October 27, 2000

capt-- yes, we're already seeing the dems go nuts on Nader-- there's a great article today on commondreams about how fat-cat dems are terrified of Nader because he points out just how far they've come from actually caring about their fellow citizens to worrying about wine, cheese, and the stock market.
posted by s10pen at 4:18 PM on October 27, 2000

well, the old article is there, but there's another one on top of it. i find that really strange.
posted by palegirl at 4:18 PM on October 27, 2000

Yes, they are burying Nader near the bottom of the page to give him as little press as possible.
posted by snakey at 4:33 PM on October 27, 2000

Come on, this is nothing. It's no big deal.

If you're a Democrat, you've gotta hate and fear Nader, because he stands for everything your party has betrayed or failed to deliver on.

If you are Green then by keeping Gore out of the Whitehouse you might have a chance to start building a viable third party.

With some serious competition this may even help stop the Democrats shifting even further to the right, although i doubt it.

Finally, this is only a Presidential election, you should really be more concerned about who get to control Congress next time. For the Greens to be effective, they need to try to capture the balance of power.

Leave the baggage behind. Gore is simply not worth the agony.

posted by lagado at 4:44 PM on October 27, 2000

You know, you are absolutely right. Nader voters ARE the balance of power in this race, and suddenly, some of his issues are actually seeing the light of day.
posted by snakey at 4:46 PM on October 27, 2000

From a really long stream of consciousness style interview with Tom Tomorrow:

...if Richard Nixon were running today, were starting out as a politician today, he'd be perfectly at home [as a Democrat]. Actually he'd be a little too leftwing for the Democratic Party with his wage and price controls, and his plan for actual national health care.

It’s true. Nixon was talking about universal health care long before anyone else. God damn liberals!
posted by capt.crackpipe at 5:14 PM on October 27, 2000

Also, he was an better environmentalist than Gore.
posted by lagado at 5:27 PM on October 27, 2000

If you're a Democrat, you've gotta hate and fear Nader, because he stands for everything your party has betrayed or failed to deliver on.

As someone who usually votes Democrat, I've gone from being generally supportive of Nader's candidacy to strongly opposed. The campaign he is running is too misguided to accomplish anything other than the defeat of Al Gore. If he was serious about building a viable third party, he would be campaigning hardest in states where Bush is assured of victory, shooting for 10 or even 15 percent of the vote nationally. He also would be working to bring minorities, gays and feminists into the Green Party. I just don't see any of that happening. As far as I know, the Greens won't even take a single seat in the House of Representatives this year. The Nader candidacy strikes me as the same pointless feel-good gesture as the Perot vote I cast in 1992. All that amounted to was millions in government-funded airtime this year for an unreconstructed bigot.
posted by rcade at 5:28 PM on October 27, 2000

I'm really glad this is happening. More and more people are paying attention and seeing firt-hand how corrput the system is and how the media is actually providing a dis-service to us.

posted by black8 at 5:33 PM on October 27, 2000

Do you really think that a significant number of people who didn't believe that before have come to believe it now because of Nader's campaign?

Perhaps a few first-year, first-time away from home college students had their introduction to these ideas via the Nader 2000 campaign, but believers already believed and the people who don't know/don't care/disagree aren't swayed by Nader at all (you should have seen the sea of Bush/Cheney signs in a 2 hour drive through rural Washington yesterday).
posted by sylloge at 6:00 PM on October 27, 2000

I talk to people everyday whom are waking up.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 6:11 PM on October 27, 2000

This is funny. And quite nice if it works as intended. Where can I send my check to fund this in WA?
Funny how people are getting so excited about this (20+ comments) and you all endure the possibility of the draft even in times where there isn't a declared state of war, the electoral college, and other very serious Constitutional (originally) unintended infringements on your personal liberty. I see the "issues" people keep bringing up on MF as smokescreens to distract you from very real and meaningful matters. People are so myopic. Just because the problem hasn't knocked you between the eyes doesn't mean it doesn't exist or deserve your attention.
Let me know if I'm off base here--and why you think so.
posted by greyscale at 7:04 PM on October 27, 2000

Sweet. What are these issues I’m missing?
posted by capt.crackpipe at 7:12 PM on October 27, 2000

this is only a Presidential election, you should really be more concerned about who get to control Congress next time.

Exactly. Which is why the most committed anti-Bush voices, I think, come from outside the US. (Myself included.) It appears that the electorate is looking to vote for domestic stalemate -- a Democratic House with a Republican president -- and that's perfectly okay. (Though a little bizarre for those accustomed to parliamentary systems.) But you're also voting for the next four years of foreign policy, and the thought of Bush setting that agenda gives Johnny Foreigner nightmares.

(If only the rest of the world had the vote.)
posted by holgate at 4:36 AM on October 28, 2000

That said, I'm reminded by this Guardian piece that a Democratic majority in the Senate would, at least, force the eviction of that chicken-necked xenophobe, Jesse Helms. Oh please let it happen.
posted by holgate at 9:42 AM on October 28, 2000

« Older   |   Rhino Records' anti-Napster PSAs Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments