Talk:Ralph Nader 2004 presidential campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Political parties[edit]

Possibly the names of all the parties Nader was endorsed by could be presented on the page in a more organized way. There are some that are missing, e.g. NY: Independence Party of New York and the Peace and Justice Party. I'm not sure how to improve it though. Esquizombi 04:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY was the following Nader info removed/censored?[edit]

The following was removed from this article even though it is fully sourced; it was said during his 2004 presidential campaign and is thus relevant to this article. The deleted information was as follows:

In August 2004 during his presidential campaign, Ralph Nader was criticized for expressing what many saw as antisemitic attitudes when he "suggested that President Bush and Congress were 'puppets' of the Israeli government" [1] [2] [3]. Nader is quoted as saying that: "The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should be replaced" [4]. Nader's statements regarding the Israeli influence on American foreign policy and American politicians brought him much criticism from the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish organizations. Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, was quoted soon after Nader made the comments, stating that "What he [Nader] said smacks of bigotry" [5]. Foxman, in an open letter to Nader about his comment(s), wrote: "...the image of the Jewish State as a 'puppeteer,' controlling the powerful U.S. Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypes which have no place in legitimate public discourse" [6]. Nader's response to Foxman can be found here, and Foxman's counter-reply to Nader's letter is here.

Here's a transcript of an interview with Nader where he discusses what he said: [7]. Also note that the YouTube video is a clip from CPSAN, where he said these things. --WassermannNYC 10:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained on the other 4 articles into which you attempted to POV-push this trivia, it was a tempest in a teapot, and the only person who still cares about it is you, the person who is also obsessed with identifying the "Jewish lobby" and all the rich Jews in the United States, along with claiming David Irving is a "Scholar of the Holocaust". Jayjg (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I don't appreciate your smear tactics; I expect better from an admin. committed to the principle of NPOV -- and PLEASE explain yourself more fully; your ONE SENTENCE does not justify deleting valid, relevant, and well sourced information. Yes the info was inserted in to 5 different articles, but you fail to add that they were all RELEVANT articles and that identical information is copied/pasted and crosslited on Wikipedia routinely if it pertains to multiple articles. Also, anything reported in the Washington Post and investigated by the ADL (along with other reliable sources) that was said by a former presidential candidate (a multiple presidential canidate actually, and well-known national figure) is not mere "trivia." I simply cannot understand why you keep saying that this is "trivia" when that assertion is a blatant falsity; the Washington Post is (as you know) one of the top newspapers in the USA. I am not "obsessed with identifying the 'Jewish lobby' and all the rich Jews in the United States" as you write: they are simply articles that I am interested in and seek to expand/enrich with factual, well-sourced, and relevant information (how many times must I say this?) -- also, must I remind you that around 80% or more of your own edits deal with Jewish-themed articles, many of which you and other admins. fiercely protect and watch in shifts, preventing other good editors from even touching them. However, I would like to ask: isn't the job of admins. to watch/police the entirety of Wikipedia instead of having 80% or even more of your edits (and the edits of some other admins. are close to 100%) on Jewish themed-articles? (as I said, this is not just you: many other high-level admins. edit Jewish articles almost exclusively to the detriment of the rest of the project, which you all seem to conveniently ignore to spend the vast bulk of your time and energy on Jewish-themed articles).
Again, please assume good faith, as you have noticed that ALL of my edits were not vandalism; they were all made in good faith in the interest of furthering the project of an OPEN and FREE encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. I am very interested in Jewish businesspeople in the USA (and the other List of Jewish Americans) and American-Israeli relations, and this is why I spent all of that time expanding that list only to have it unjustly deleted by you in the blink of an eye (and hence my high edit count in regards to these particular articles).
As for your other smear: "...claiming David Irving is a "Scholar of the Holocaust"...that IS NOT what I said. If you had read it correctly, I wrote: "I see that we don't have a 'Category:Independent scholars' here on Wiki. Though I find Irving's views pertaining to Jews and the Holocaust absolutely despicable..." -- I simply proposed to create a 'Category:Independent scholars' (for not only Irving but many others) as pertaining to Irving's history books that were written independently of any university or organization. Such a category would also be relevant for any other scholar or researcher that has published outside of the academic system yet still have valuable and well-researched views on their primary subjects; this had nothing to do with his personal views on the Holocaust, which I immediately denounced (Irving has never written a book on the Holocaust exclusively as far as I can find, only on WWII history). So, if you would please stop misquoting me I would certainly appreciate that. Also, since you canvassed this over my own canvasses on the pages which I added the Nader info that you later removed, I'm going to go ahead and copy/paste this response to the other smears in order to offer a rebuttal to your smear tactics. --WassermannNYC 03:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nader's apology demand to to the Congressional Black Caucus[edit]

The Washington Times is a reliable source for news citations. The Washington Times “Inside Politics” July 13, 2004 column reported:

Presidential candidate Ralph Nader, in a letter yesterday to the Congressional Black Caucus, demanded an apology from Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland Democrat and caucus chairman, for luring him to a meeting under the premise that issues would be discussed.

From the letter:

"Instead, exclamations at the meeting descended into vituperative, (e.g., Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick's tawdry, anatomical comment yelled loud enough so the press could hear it outside) and ending with the obscene, racist epithet repeated twice by Yale Law School alumnus Congressman Melvin Watt of North Carolina, "Just as African-Americans demanded an apology from [Nixon-Ford era] Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz and Senator Trent Lott -- prior to their resignation and demotion, respectively -- for their racist remarks, I expect that you and others in the caucus will exert your moral persuasion and request an apology from Congressman Watt.

"Attached are the exact words of Congressman Watt's loud remarks, as heard by all in the meeting room without anyone admonishing him. In fact, some members rather enjoyed what he said, judging by their outward demeanor.

"The remarks: ‘You're just another arrogant white man -- telling us what we can do -- it's all about your ego -- another [expletive] arrogant white man.’"[1]

It was a telling episode in the 2004 presidential election campaign. This Wikipedia article reports that Nader demanded an apology for remarks made by Congressman Melvin Watt. Readers of the article are therefore entitled to know what those remarks were. Nader reported them in his letter to the Congressional Black Caucus: “You're just another arrogant white man -- telling us what we can do -- it's all about your ego -- another [expletive] arrogant white man.” Does anybody know what the expletive was? Or what the “obscene, racist epithet” was? And then there’s Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick's “tawdry, anatomical comment” toward Nader. What was that?

The mind reels. A racial epithet hurled twice. Accusations of arrogance. A tawdry, anatomical comment. Nader got roughed up pretty bad that day at the Congressional Black Caucus and he asked for an apology. Obviously this episode and the comments by Watt belong in the article. And obviously, the "arrogant white man" remarks were made. Nader reported them himself. Please, let’s not white-wash like that in Wikipedia. Let’s tell it like it is. No white-washing please. 207.158.58.188 (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Editors (July 13, 2004) “Inside Politics: Apology Demanded.” Washington Times. (Retrieved 6-2-12.)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ralph_Nader_2004_presidential_campaign&oldid=1204998604"