US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Nader barred from debate site
04 Oct 2000
Despite having a valid ticket, Ralph Nader was tonight barred from even sitting in the audience of the presidential debate in Boston. (This is an updated and corrected version of an earlier post, "Nader vows to crash 'corrupt' debate.")
Nader barred from debate site

Despite having a valid ticket, Ralph Nader was tonight barred from even sitting in the audience of the presidential debate in Boston.

According to AP reports, Nader was personally barred from entering by Commission on Presidential Debates official John Bezeris. According to AP, Bezeris, surrounded by police, told Nader, "It's already been decided that whether or not you have a ticket you are not welcome in the debate."

At a 5:30 press conference at Harvard Law School, from which Nader graduated in 1958, the Green Party presidential candidate displayed a ticket to the Bush-Gore debate that had been given to him by Todd Tavares, a political science junior at Boston's Northeastern University. According to Tavares, he was assured on Thursday by debate organizers that all ticket holders would be admitted to the October 3 event, on the campus of the University of Massachusetts-Boston. "I intend to be in the audience," said Nader. "We'll see if they come up with another way to keep me out."

Tavares, when asked if the regretted giving up "the chance of a lifetime" to attend the debate, said, "This is a small sacrifice for the good of the nation."

"I'll be in there, and there won't be a U Mass-Boston student in sight," said Nader, referring to the largely working-class commuter university that has been shut down for two days because of the debates. "I'll be surrounded by corporate executives and their families. But it won't matter. This event is the ultimate kamikaze dive of a corrupt two-party system."

Nader portrayed the two candidates and the event's organizing committee, the Commission on Presidential Debates, as corrupt agents of corporate power. "This so-called 'debate' will be nothing but a question-and-answer session," said Nader. "It will not address the problem of the concentration of wealth and power in too few hands, and away from the people who do the work--the workers, consumers, taxpayers, and voters. Not one question to Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore will ask how they will transfer this corporate power to the people."

"Our country is more important than their sleazy fundraisers and their sleazy debate commissions," said Nader. The Committee on Presidential Debates is a private corporation under the directorship of representatives of the Democratic and Republican parties. "This is the last four-year election that a corrupt commission will deny a real debate to tens of millions of American voters," he promised.

But the courts have not helped so far. Nader said he was unaware of a ruling, issued today, against the petition of Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne to participate in the debates. An earlier federal lawsuit by Nader, challenging the debate as a form of illegal corporate campaign contribution, was dismissed. It is now on appeal.

When asked what issues should be addressed, Nader rattled off without pausing for breath, "Full funding of elections. An end to corporate welfare. Fraud and abuse in government contracting. Ending oppressive labor laws that keep workers from organizing. The corporatization of universities. The need for regulation of biotechnology. Withdrawal from the World Trade Organization and NAFTA until fair and enforceable reciprocal agreements protecting the rights of average people have been made. Doing away with the Commission on Presidential Debates. For starters."

Nader, his running mate Winona Laduke, and the Green Party promise to institute universal, accessible health insurance for all Americans now; end corporate welfare; empower working people by, among other measures, repealing the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947; and ending what they call "cash register politics" funded by corporations and the rich.

Nader said he favors the federal recent approval of RU-486 abortion pill, and would fund its use under his party's health care plan.
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


all over
04 Oct 2000
We came, we saw, we acquiesced.

Have we become so damned PC that we've come to equate non-violence with non-action? While it's heartwarming to see so many kids - the often lamented don't-care generation - stand up for their rights, it was disappointing to see them chant at the busses instead of stopping them in their tracks. I came in support mode to be a witness for those that would be arrested. If I'd known nobody was going to pick up the wrench, I'd have come prepared to do that instead.
See also:
Insult to Injury
04 Oct 2000
Ralph Nader, having already been excluded from adding a vital opinion to the presidential debates through direct participation, recieved the deepest insult last night when, after presenting
a valid ticket to observe the debates on closed circuit t.v., the Green Party canidate was shunned from the building like some sort of political leper. The most angering detail of this event is that Nader
would be watching the debates ( which were so strictly controlled anyway) not from the front , middle,
or back rows, but from a little monitor, on a little screen, where his dangerous political contagion could
have no chance of infecting the sterile exchange between Tweedle-Gore and Tweedle-Bush. Yet, that
was not good enough for the Presidential Debate Committee. Apparently, Nader's ideas are too threatening to allow the man anywhere near their carefully packaged, coorperate-whoring canidates.
God forbid that any hint of a dissident opinion share the same breathing space with the "real" canidates. I supose it is much too scary to think that Nader's presence may inject even the slightest
bit of alternative thought on the choice for the American Presidency.
Seeing Nader escorted away from the debates by state troopers was, for me, a glaring symbol of the farce that is American Democracy. It reinforces the notion that those in powerful positions will leave nothing to chance in order to ensure a real, thoughtful discourse on political issues will never happen on a nationwide scale. A canidate like Nader, who publicly denounces coorperate influence on political policies, would greatly undermine the political Status-Qou should his views attain as wide of
a forum as those of Bush And Gore. Yet, this cannot is a scary proposition which threatens to uncover the rotten, corrupt core of American politics...Nothing can be left to chance...Nader cannot
be seen anywhere near the "real canidates"...But, it's alright....Men with guns are guarding the door.
youre right
04 Oct 2000
i hope you're a young person. I thought I was too jaded to be emotionally moved by anything political--but your remarks got to me. Interestingly enough; there has been more press coverage of nader being kicked out of the outskirts of the audience than there has been of any of his campaign to date (by the mainstream media I mean)--its also been a huge energizer on the nader petition drive board on Not only a swelling of posts; but almost all of them something good to say. That is a real encouraging board; shows a lot of articulate, caring people--unlike the nader2000 boards which are dominated by a handful of gore operatives spouting the "frightened liberal" line. The posts on the MIchael Moore board were also espcially good this morning; by the way this is a great site!
Best Line
04 Oct 2000
I thought the best line in the debate was by Jim Lehrer after he listened to responses by Gore and Bush: "What's the difference?"
See also:
We should interview all job APLICANTS
04 Oct 2000
We should try to treat this as much like a typical job interview as possible.

We should start by asking them to fill out an application.
The best potential aplication I could find comes from vote smart called the National Political Awareness Test.

There should be a way for the people to influence the questions on the application.

I have interviewed numerous people for jobs over the last few years and some of them came in with a long song and dance about how they were the best but when I asked them to fill out the aplication they on occassion put there phone # name and ignored the job referances. In at least one case I told someone I don't care about personal referances just job referances and he put the personal referance instead of job referance. Needless to say I didn't consider these people for employment.

After filling out the aplication they should collect the signatures to get on the ballot. They should answer the neccisarry questions the signers ask to get the signitures. consider this the first interview.

They should go to televised interviews where average citizens ask them more questions. These can be regional or issue oriented or both.

All Applicants should get equal treatment.
all aplications and televised interviews should be available on the internet on demand to all citizens.

There will be no need for primaries, candidates or parties.

Campiagns will be about issues and shouldn't mention applicants names.

We should have EQUAL rights to free speach.

On numerous occassions over the years I have had more than one applicant show up to apply. they have allways been polite to each other and never told me the reason I should hire them is because the other guy is unqualified. I have never heard of this happening in a typical interview. It is not there place to do this and I would never put up with it if they did. they should focus on telling us why they're qualified and let us judge those qualifications. We will need to develop a better way to confirm this but not biased info from the applicant.

Al Gore, George Bush, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan have all refused to fill out the application.
They have all spent more time attacking others than telling us what there qualification are.

Harry Browne, John Hagelin and Howard Phillips have all filled out the application. They participated in a open debate that allowed all candidates who had ballot acces to participate. Al Gore, George Bush, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan refused to participate in this debate.

As far as I'm concerned Harry Browne, John Hagelin and Howard Phillips deserve consideration. Al Gore, George Bush, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan do not.
See also:
E mail correction
04 Oct 2000
this is from the previos comment
See also:
"In business we trust."
04 Oct 2000
The probable projected purpose of banning Nader from the debates was obviously an attempt to keep the real truth from being leaked to the public. The American Government has kept it's country stupid on just about everything so they can keep raping the average citizen of their rights and hard earned dollars. Appearently Bush and Gore still like it this way. Heaven forbid that someone like Nader should tell people the way things really are. Heaven forbid that the masses are to be educated. Both Bush and Gore talk about education, But is it really education? These two clowns want to keep people stupid. Bush talks of drilling for oil in federally protected wildlife preserves and re-arming ourselves with ICBM's to "protect" us from "rogue" nations, and people still want to vote for him! I seriously don't understand how people can tolerate this! People don't realize that if Bush wins the race that everything from abortion to the seperation of church and state will be in jeopardy. Bush would in-effect lighting his victory cigar with the Constitution in the Oval Office. I say let Nader educate! Let's take back what belongs to the people because this is our country, not theirs!
God Help Us!
04 Oct 2000
This has to end - for the love of God - where do we live?! Fight the revolution.
bushgore goliath
07 Oct 2000
What I find so interesting is that, in this so-called "Judeo-Christian" nation of ours, when "Daniel" stands up to the corporate-sponsored, money-centered Bushgore Goliath and to the undemocratic "election" process, everyone is ready to stone poor Daniel to death. It's so interesting, because at exactly the same moment in history, they sing praises to the people of Yugoslavia who took to the streets in an effort to make THEIR voices heard. It's "courageous" and "exciting" and "wonderful" when the "Daniels" of Yugoslavia standing up to the Milosivich Goliath. Suddenly, our mainstream media give THESE protesters full-page photographs ("just look at the throngs") on front pages of our major newspapers --"tens of thousands took to the streets," giving detailed descriptions of how they feel, what they said, the importance of their cause. When tens of thousands take to the streets here, the message gets lost in the police brutality. Yep, we sure do have it good here in the US of A, don't we? Pepper sprayed and beaten to a pulp for trying to voice our opinions, degraded, ignored by the press and the powers that be. I love this democracy, don't you?