No man is a prophet in his own land.
Dear Occupy Wall St. Sympathizers,
Occupy's message is virtually identical to that which many (most?) of you have spent the last dozen years smearing Ralph Nader and his supporters for while you've voted for militaristic, anti-civil liberties, corporatist Democrats. Glad you've finally come around. I just hope you don't develop amnesia between now and November.
Showing posts with label Ralph Nader. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ralph Nader. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Friday, October 17, 2008
On Obama and the Corporate Democrats
Here are some thoughts from Nader/Gonzalez on Barack Obama and the Corporate Democrats. Obama is probably the most appealing presidential candidate the Dems have nominated in a quarter century. The fact that Obama can have all of these flaws on core issues (I'm not talking perfection here, but issues that go to the heart of the progressive agenda) and still be the best choice the Dems put forward in two and a half decades shows how irredeemable the party is. Vote for a smaller party or independent candidate this November.
Fascism, like socialism, is rooted in a market society that refused to function.
A financial system always devolves, without heavy government control, into a Mafia capitalism -- and a Mafia political system.
A self-regulating market turns human beings and the natural environment into commodities, a situation that ensures the destruction of both society and the natural environment.
Who is this speaking?
It is the Hungarian intellectual Karl Polanyi, author of the influential book The Great Transformation (1944).
Polanyi fled fascist Europe in 1933 and eventually taught at Columbia University.
Remembering Polanyi, former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges writes today:
"I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good."
We live in difficult times.
But one man has shown the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the corporate state -- Ralph Nader.
For most of this year, Ralph has been barnstorming across the country -- bringing a message of hope and resilience to a troubled America.
And now it's time to step up and support Ralph Nader and the shift the power platform he has gifted to the American people.
and
[O]n three key issues [Tuesday night] -- energy, health insurance, corporate crime -- Obama stood with the corporations against the interests of the American people.
Compare Nader to Obama.
Last night, McCain challenged Obama.
Tell me one time you have stood up to the leaders of your party, McCain said.
Obama couldn't name one time when he stood up to the corporations that control his party.
So, instead he named a couple of times when he stood with the corporations.
And against the interests of the American people.
I voted for tort reform, Obama said.
Wow!
Brave of you Barack.
You stood with the National Association of Manufacturers against injured people.
I support clean coal technology, Obama said.
Wow Barack, you stood with the polluting coal industry against people who suffer the consequences.
When McCain accused Obama of supporting a single payer, Canadian style national health insurance system, Obama said he didn't.
And he doesn't.
Despite the fact that a majority of doctors, nurses and the American people want it.
On national health insurance, Obama stands with the insurance industry and against the American people who are demanding single payer.
Over 5,000 U.S. physicians have signed an open letter calling on the candidates for president and Congress "to stand up for the health of the American people and implement a nonprofit, single-payer national health insurance system."
Obama says no.
McCain says no.
Nader/Gonzalez says yes.
Yes to single payer.
Yes to solar and no to coal.
Yes to protecting the American people from corporate recklessness and
crime, no to tort deform.
So, donate $3 to the candidacy that is not on the debate stage.
But that is right on the issues.
Nader/Gonzalez.
Today, while Obama fronts for his corporate donors, Ralph Nader, Matt Gonzalez and the Nader Team will be on Wall Street protesting
corporate America's sustained orgy of excess and reckless behavior.
Nader/Gonzalez continues to stand with the people.
Against the corporate criminals and their candidates in the two major parties.
For more: votenader.org
Fascism, like socialism, is rooted in a market society that refused to function.
A financial system always devolves, without heavy government control, into a Mafia capitalism -- and a Mafia political system.
A self-regulating market turns human beings and the natural environment into commodities, a situation that ensures the destruction of both society and the natural environment.
Who is this speaking?
It is the Hungarian intellectual Karl Polanyi, author of the influential book The Great Transformation (1944).
Polanyi fled fascist Europe in 1933 and eventually taught at Columbia University.
Remembering Polanyi, former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges writes today:
"I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good."
We live in difficult times.
But one man has shown the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the corporate state -- Ralph Nader.
For most of this year, Ralph has been barnstorming across the country -- bringing a message of hope and resilience to a troubled America.
And now it's time to step up and support Ralph Nader and the shift the power platform he has gifted to the American people.
and
[O]n three key issues [Tuesday night] -- energy, health insurance, corporate crime -- Obama stood with the corporations against the interests of the American people.
Compare Nader to Obama.
Last night, McCain challenged Obama.
Tell me one time you have stood up to the leaders of your party, McCain said.
Obama couldn't name one time when he stood up to the corporations that control his party.
So, instead he named a couple of times when he stood with the corporations.
And against the interests of the American people.
I voted for tort reform, Obama said.
Wow!
Brave of you Barack.
You stood with the National Association of Manufacturers against injured people.
I support clean coal technology, Obama said.
Wow Barack, you stood with the polluting coal industry against people who suffer the consequences.
When McCain accused Obama of supporting a single payer, Canadian style national health insurance system, Obama said he didn't.
And he doesn't.
Despite the fact that a majority of doctors, nurses and the American people want it.
On national health insurance, Obama stands with the insurance industry and against the American people who are demanding single payer.
Over 5,000 U.S. physicians have signed an open letter calling on the candidates for president and Congress "to stand up for the health of the American people and implement a nonprofit, single-payer national health insurance system."
Obama says no.
McCain says no.
Nader/Gonzalez says yes.
Yes to single payer.
Yes to solar and no to coal.
Yes to protecting the American people from corporate recklessness and
crime, no to tort deform.
So, donate $3 to the candidacy that is not on the debate stage.
But that is right on the issues.
Nader/Gonzalez.
Today, while Obama fronts for his corporate donors, Ralph Nader, Matt Gonzalez and the Nader Team will be on Wall Street protesting
corporate America's sustained orgy of excess and reckless behavior.
Nader/Gonzalez continues to stand with the people.
Against the corporate criminals and their candidates in the two major parties.
For more: votenader.org
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Ralph Nader in Albany tonight; real debates when?
Matt Funiciello reports that independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader will be in Albany tonight.
Corporate mainstream media is NOT doing its job to report the news!
Have they told us there will be SIX viable presidential candidates on the NYS ballot this November?
Have they told us that one of them, Ralph Nader, will be speaking at The Egg in Albany tonight?
Did you know that you don't have to accept the two corporate choices American media is force feeding us?
Did you know that Ralph Nader was against the bailouts and is against corporate welfare?
Did you know that he is an absolute supporter of Single-Payer Health Care?
Did you know he will get our soldiers and our corporations out of Iraq starting on Day One?
Did you know that he is for alternative and sustainable energy (solar and wind, not "clean coal" or "safe nukes")?
Did you know that he's on the ballot in 45 states and is being equally virtually ignored by all media (Fox, Clear Channel, PBS, NPR & the N.Y. Times alike)?
Did you know that the polling organization whose job it is to shut independents out of the "debates" recently admitted this is done arbitrarily?
Did you know that we can celebrate democracy by taking it into our own hands?
Come see a real American citizen in Albany tonight! See you there!
Thurs. Oct. 16th, 7:30pm
Nader/Gonzalez Rally
The Egg - Empire State Plaza (Albany NY)
Suggested Contribution: $10/$5 students
Contact: Matt Funiciello
(518) 793-0075
Also, I noticed that yesterday, C-SPAN had an interview with George Farah, head of a non-partisan organization called Open Debates. Open Debates wants to replace the corporate-funded, two-party Duopoly controlled and anti-democratic Commission on Presidential Debates with a structure that will present the American citizenry with more points of view than the 1 1/3 they are force fed under the present closed system. Perhaps once a true diversity of voices are permitted into the debates, then they will actually become debates rather than mere regurgitations of well-worn soundbytes.
Sadly, useful but marginal media outlets like C-SPAN are about the only places you'll be exposed to points of view like those of Ralph Nader and pro-democracy advocates.
Corporate mainstream media is NOT doing its job to report the news!
Have they told us there will be SIX viable presidential candidates on the NYS ballot this November?
Have they told us that one of them, Ralph Nader, will be speaking at The Egg in Albany tonight?
Did you know that you don't have to accept the two corporate choices American media is force feeding us?
Did you know that Ralph Nader was against the bailouts and is against corporate welfare?
Did you know that he is an absolute supporter of Single-Payer Health Care?
Did you know he will get our soldiers and our corporations out of Iraq starting on Day One?
Did you know that he is for alternative and sustainable energy (solar and wind, not "clean coal" or "safe nukes")?
Did you know that he's on the ballot in 45 states and is being equally virtually ignored by all media (Fox, Clear Channel, PBS, NPR & the N.Y. Times alike)?
Did you know that the polling organization whose job it is to shut independents out of the "debates" recently admitted this is done arbitrarily?
Did you know that we can celebrate democracy by taking it into our own hands?
Come see a real American citizen in Albany tonight! See you there!
Thurs. Oct. 16th, 7:30pm
Nader/Gonzalez Rally
The Egg - Empire State Plaza (Albany NY)
Suggested Contribution: $10/$5 students
Contact: Matt Funiciello
(518) 793-0075
Also, I noticed that yesterday, C-SPAN had an interview with George Farah, head of a non-partisan organization called Open Debates. Open Debates wants to replace the corporate-funded, two-party Duopoly controlled and anti-democratic Commission on Presidential Debates with a structure that will present the American citizenry with more points of view than the 1 1/3 they are force fed under the present closed system. Perhaps once a true diversity of voices are permitted into the debates, then they will actually become debates rather than mere regurgitations of well-worn soundbytes.
Sadly, useful but marginal media outlets like C-SPAN are about the only places you'll be exposed to points of view like those of Ralph Nader and pro-democracy advocates.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Financial sanity burnt at altar of the gods of bipartisanship
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
Sens. Obama and McCain are both engaging in posturing over the Bush administration's repeated bailouts of failing corporations. As NPR reported, Obama has raised over $10 million in legalized campaign bribes from Wall Street while St. John has netted over $7 million. So excuse me if I don't buy into their faux populism.
St. John has called for a commission to study the problems. There is already a commission that's supposed to deal with some of these problems. It's called the Securities and Exchange Commission.
This is exactly what happens when corporations are given the protection of being backed by public (taxpayer) money without any restrictions whatsoever to protect the public interest. If you want the protection, accept regulation. If you don't want regulation, assume all the risk yourself. Pick your poison. These most gargantuan of corporate welfare handouts give the market the worst of both worlds: risk without responsibility.
I guess the 'free market' is free for the corporations, certainly not for the taxpayers.
But the meltdown in the insurance and financial sectors is not entirely the fault of Republicans. The deregulation that produced this risk without responsibility was the fruit of that most sainted of Washington concepts, one that is teflon to any and all criticism: (drum roll please) BIPARTISANSHIP.
In 1999, a bill was passed that completely gutted regulations on financial institutions. It was passed by a Republican Congress (with plenty of support in the Donkey Party) and signed by a Democratic president. Just read this CNN report from the time and count how many times you read some form of the word 'bipartisan.'
Many Americans think bipartisanship is automatically a panacea to any ill. In too many instances, it's merely a case of the two major parties colluding to protect the interests of their corporate sponsors. This is precisely why we need try multipartyism in the United States, like every other western democracy has.
"The bill is anti-consumer and anti-community," said one public figure quoted in that CNN report. "It will mean higher prices and fewer choices for low-, moderate- and middle-income families across the nation... Personal privacy will be virtually eliminated" under provisions allowing affiliated businesses of the newly merged companies to share customers' personal financial data as they offer one-stop shopping.
If we had multipartyism, then that public figure might've been a Congressman from a smaller, non-corporate party on the floor of the House. But since we don't have that, the public figure was consumer advocate (and 2008 presidential candidate) Ralph Nader.
This prediction was made in 1999. Does any of it ring true today?
But Nader, like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich or anyone else who goes against the corporate parties' consensus, was burnt at the altar of the gods of bipartisanship.
Sens. Obama and McCain are both engaging in posturing over the Bush administration's repeated bailouts of failing corporations. As NPR reported, Obama has raised over $10 million in legalized campaign bribes from Wall Street while St. John has netted over $7 million. So excuse me if I don't buy into their faux populism.
St. John has called for a commission to study the problems. There is already a commission that's supposed to deal with some of these problems. It's called the Securities and Exchange Commission.
This is exactly what happens when corporations are given the protection of being backed by public (taxpayer) money without any restrictions whatsoever to protect the public interest. If you want the protection, accept regulation. If you don't want regulation, assume all the risk yourself. Pick your poison. These most gargantuan of corporate welfare handouts give the market the worst of both worlds: risk without responsibility.
I guess the 'free market' is free for the corporations, certainly not for the taxpayers.
But the meltdown in the insurance and financial sectors is not entirely the fault of Republicans. The deregulation that produced this risk without responsibility was the fruit of that most sainted of Washington concepts, one that is teflon to any and all criticism: (drum roll please) BIPARTISANSHIP.
In 1999, a bill was passed that completely gutted regulations on financial institutions. It was passed by a Republican Congress (with plenty of support in the Donkey Party) and signed by a Democratic president. Just read this CNN report from the time and count how many times you read some form of the word 'bipartisan.'
Many Americans think bipartisanship is automatically a panacea to any ill. In too many instances, it's merely a case of the two major parties colluding to protect the interests of their corporate sponsors. This is precisely why we need try multipartyism in the United States, like every other western democracy has.
"The bill is anti-consumer and anti-community," said one public figure quoted in that CNN report. "It will mean higher prices and fewer choices for low-, moderate- and middle-income families across the nation... Personal privacy will be virtually eliminated" under provisions allowing affiliated businesses of the newly merged companies to share customers' personal financial data as they offer one-stop shopping.
If we had multipartyism, then that public figure might've been a Congressman from a smaller, non-corporate party on the floor of the House. But since we don't have that, the public figure was consumer advocate (and 2008 presidential candidate) Ralph Nader.
This prediction was made in 1999. Does any of it ring true today?
But Nader, like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich or anyone else who goes against the corporate parties' consensus, was burnt at the altar of the gods of bipartisanship.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Constitution Day
Today is Constitution Day.
And in honor of George W. Bush's least favorite holiday which honors a document he doesn't acknowledge, Nader/Gonzalez For President offers:
a five question Constitution Day civics quiz for you.
1. Which candidate opposed the snoop enabling FISA law and the immunity bailout for the telecom companies -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
2. Which candidate called for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney for all of their crimes from the illegal war in Iraq to illegal wiretapping of unsuspecting Americans -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
3. Which candidate opposed passage of the Patriot Act and calls for its repeal -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
4. Which candidate opposes the death penalty -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
5. Which candidate would work to repeal corporate personhood --- and shift the power from the corporations back into the hands of the people -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
The answer to each of those questions is Ralph Nader.
So if you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
And in honor of George W. Bush's least favorite holiday which honors a document he doesn't acknowledge, Nader/Gonzalez For President offers:
a five question Constitution Day civics quiz for you.
1. Which candidate opposed the snoop enabling FISA law and the immunity bailout for the telecom companies -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
2. Which candidate called for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney for all of their crimes from the illegal war in Iraq to illegal wiretapping of unsuspecting Americans -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
3. Which candidate opposed passage of the Patriot Act and calls for its repeal -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
4. Which candidate opposes the death penalty -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
5. Which candidate would work to repeal corporate personhood --- and shift the power from the corporations back into the hands of the people -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
The answer to each of those questions is Ralph Nader.
So if you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Nader on domestic spying
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader gives his opinion on the Democratic Senate's approval of immunity for illegal activity committed by telecommunications companies and the expansion of domestic spying. Sen. Barack Obama supported this unconstitutional legislation.
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader gives his opinion on the Democratic Senate's approval of immunity for illegal activity committed by telecommunications companies and the expansion of domestic spying. Sen. Barack Obama supported this unconstitutional legislation.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Why Hillary's defeat matters
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
It’s no secret that I am a Green and will vote for Ralph Nader in November. And although I was initially enthused by some of his foreign policy comments, I've soured a bit on Barack Obama.
In recent months, he’s chosen to appease the gods of political correctness. These gods demand no deviation from the religion of militarism (Obama's commenting about bombing Pakistan!). These gods equate disagreeing with the Israeli government 0.01 percent of the time to promoting a second Holocaust.
This has undermined Obama's claim to being bold, his promise to bring a new kind of politics to Washington .
That said, Obama's effective clinching of the Democratic nomination is important because it is the triumph of a certain kind of politics over old-style sleaze-and-divide that G. Walker Bush and Hillary Clinton represent.
Now bear in mind, I don't think a President Obama would fundamentally transform American foreign policy. I don't think he will live up to then-Gov. G.W. Bush's observation (almost immediately betrayed by Pres. G. W. Bush) that, "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."
I think Obama would change the tone of foreign policy, but not the substance. If elected, he'd return us to a (Bill) Clintonian 'kinder, gentler empire.' He'd make sure that all wars of aggression were multilateral.
Yet. a kinder, gentler empire is still an empire.
A multilateral war of aggression is still a war of aggression.
But Obama's nomination matters less because he won than because Hillary Clinton lost. Here's why.
I've noticed a recent trend in Africa and the Middle East for countries to become de facto monarchical republics. Dictators hand off to their sons. You’ve seen it in places like Syria and Togo. You’ve seen sons made heirs apparent in many other faux republics like Gabon, Egypt and Cameroon.
Had Hillary been elected this year, America would’ve risked turning into to a similar banana republic. The US could’ve been ruled by either a Bush or Clinton for 28 consecutive years. Perhaps longer if Brother Bush from Florida had decided to run in 2012 or 2016. Hillary’s defeat was bad for dynastic politics and as such, it was good for democracy.
Hillary was a victim of double standards she and her supporters promoted.
She said she wanted to be judged by the same standards as male politicians, But when you criticized her objective flaws, such as her being the favorite candidate of corporate special interests, you were reflexively dismissed as misogynistic, as hating strong women.
She said the media was sexist because it made a big deal of the fact she cried (never mind that this was the same media that massively overplayed the Howard Dean Scream in 2004) but she had no problem making statements implying or even stating explicitly that women make better leaders than men.
Liberal-minded people, the people most open to voting for a non-white male candidate, objected to these double standards. They resented being called sexist because they asked fair questions. They resented the suggestion that not supporting Hillary was a slap in the face not to a woman, but to all women.
She made people most likely to support her into the people most likely to loathe her. The harshest comments I’ve heard about her in the last six months have been not from the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ but from liberals and progressives who were offended by her and her most rabid supporters' affront to their sense of fairness.
There are 300 million Americans, about half of whom are female. Many of whom are as smart and talented as Hillary but without her air of cronyism, of presumptuousness, of arrogance and, most gallingly for a ‘feminist’ icon,’ of nepotism.
To most liberal-minded people, it seems fair to say, "I’d vote for a good female candidate but Hillary isn't that candidate."
But Hillary supporters treated a vote against her as a vote against all women, as a vote against womanhood, as a rejection of female equality.
It’s no coincidence that Obama’s speeches are rife with the word ‘we’ while Hillary’s overuse the word ‘I’.
The biggest single reason so many Hillary supporters are bitter is because they thought the nomination ‘belonged’ to her before the first voters were cast.
That makes it so they think Obama 'stole' the nomination that, in their delusional minds, rightly belonged to her before the first vote was even cast. Their rejection of her was, in their eyes, the height of ingratitude.
This mentality exemplifies why it's good that Hillary lost. Any president needs a healthy ego, but we've seen damage that can be done by a president with a gargantuan sense of entitlement and an absolute belief that people owe him something.
The reason Obama’s win is good isn't so much because Obama's a transformational candidate. He's not.
The reason it's important is because political office should be earned, not given. It should be a race, not a coronation. Obama is certainly flawed, but he's far less bad than Hillary. Kudos to Democratic voters for thinking for themselves and making their own decisions rather than listening to the media-decreed conventional wisdom of last December and January which had already anointed Hillary the next president as a foregone conclusion.
The US has spent eight years being misruled by a corporate-owned president with a massive sense of entitlement, with no moral compass, who thinks the rules and the laws don't apply to him, who divides people for his personal benefit and who felt like he had a God-given right to absolute power because of who he happened to be related to.
The Democrats rejected Hillary because so many of them saw the every single one of those qualities in her. And in doing so, they did the nation a favor. In doing so, they gave America the small hope that one day in the future that the Democratic Party might actually break the shackles of corporate control and nominate a truly progressive candidate.
Update: You need more than vague talk about 'change' to impress me. I can't remember the last non-incumbent candidate who DIDN'T talk about change. I can't remember the last non-incumbent nominee who DIDN'T promise to shake up Washington. And fearmongering like the 'a vote for Nader is a vote for (insert Republican Devil Incarnate du jour)' lie only repels me. But when you start doing stuff like this, now you've got my attention.
It’s no secret that I am a Green and will vote for Ralph Nader in November. And although I was initially enthused by some of his foreign policy comments, I've soured a bit on Barack Obama.
In recent months, he’s chosen to appease the gods of political correctness. These gods demand no deviation from the religion of militarism (Obama's commenting about bombing Pakistan!). These gods equate disagreeing with the Israeli government 0.01 percent of the time to promoting a second Holocaust.
This has undermined Obama's claim to being bold, his promise to bring a new kind of politics to Washington .
That said, Obama's effective clinching of the Democratic nomination is important because it is the triumph of a certain kind of politics over old-style sleaze-and-divide that G. Walker Bush and Hillary Clinton represent.
Now bear in mind, I don't think a President Obama would fundamentally transform American foreign policy. I don't think he will live up to then-Gov. G.W. Bush's observation (almost immediately betrayed by Pres. G. W. Bush) that, "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."
I think Obama would change the tone of foreign policy, but not the substance. If elected, he'd return us to a (Bill) Clintonian 'kinder, gentler empire.' He'd make sure that all wars of aggression were multilateral.
Yet. a kinder, gentler empire is still an empire.
A multilateral war of aggression is still a war of aggression.
But Obama's nomination matters less because he won than because Hillary Clinton lost. Here's why.
I've noticed a recent trend in Africa and the Middle East for countries to become de facto monarchical republics. Dictators hand off to their sons. You’ve seen it in places like Syria and Togo. You’ve seen sons made heirs apparent in many other faux republics like Gabon, Egypt and Cameroon.
Had Hillary been elected this year, America would’ve risked turning into to a similar banana republic. The US could’ve been ruled by either a Bush or Clinton for 28 consecutive years. Perhaps longer if Brother Bush from Florida had decided to run in 2012 or 2016. Hillary’s defeat was bad for dynastic politics and as such, it was good for democracy.
Hillary was a victim of double standards she and her supporters promoted.
She said she wanted to be judged by the same standards as male politicians, But when you criticized her objective flaws, such as her being the favorite candidate of corporate special interests, you were reflexively dismissed as misogynistic, as hating strong women.
She said the media was sexist because it made a big deal of the fact she cried (never mind that this was the same media that massively overplayed the Howard Dean Scream in 2004) but she had no problem making statements implying or even stating explicitly that women make better leaders than men.
Liberal-minded people, the people most open to voting for a non-white male candidate, objected to these double standards. They resented being called sexist because they asked fair questions. They resented the suggestion that not supporting Hillary was a slap in the face not to a woman, but to all women.
She made people most likely to support her into the people most likely to loathe her. The harshest comments I’ve heard about her in the last six months have been not from the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ but from liberals and progressives who were offended by her and her most rabid supporters' affront to their sense of fairness.
There are 300 million Americans, about half of whom are female. Many of whom are as smart and talented as Hillary but without her air of cronyism, of presumptuousness, of arrogance and, most gallingly for a ‘feminist’ icon,’ of nepotism.
To most liberal-minded people, it seems fair to say, "I’d vote for a good female candidate but Hillary isn't that candidate."
But Hillary supporters treated a vote against her as a vote against all women, as a vote against womanhood, as a rejection of female equality.
It’s no coincidence that Obama’s speeches are rife with the word ‘we’ while Hillary’s overuse the word ‘I’.
The biggest single reason so many Hillary supporters are bitter is because they thought the nomination ‘belonged’ to her before the first voters were cast.
That makes it so they think Obama 'stole' the nomination that, in their delusional minds, rightly belonged to her before the first vote was even cast. Their rejection of her was, in their eyes, the height of ingratitude.
This mentality exemplifies why it's good that Hillary lost. Any president needs a healthy ego, but we've seen damage that can be done by a president with a gargantuan sense of entitlement and an absolute belief that people owe him something.
The reason Obama’s win is good isn't so much because Obama's a transformational candidate. He's not.
The reason it's important is because political office should be earned, not given. It should be a race, not a coronation. Obama is certainly flawed, but he's far less bad than Hillary. Kudos to Democratic voters for thinking for themselves and making their own decisions rather than listening to the media-decreed conventional wisdom of last December and January which had already anointed Hillary the next president as a foregone conclusion.
The US has spent eight years being misruled by a corporate-owned president with a massive sense of entitlement, with no moral compass, who thinks the rules and the laws don't apply to him, who divides people for his personal benefit and who felt like he had a God-given right to absolute power because of who he happened to be related to.
The Democrats rejected Hillary because so many of them saw the every single one of those qualities in her. And in doing so, they did the nation a favor. In doing so, they gave America the small hope that one day in the future that the Democratic Party might actually break the shackles of corporate control and nominate a truly progressive candidate.
Update: You need more than vague talk about 'change' to impress me. I can't remember the last non-incumbent candidate who DIDN'T talk about change. I can't remember the last non-incumbent nominee who DIDN'T promise to shake up Washington. And fearmongering like the 'a vote for Nader is a vote for (insert Republican Devil Incarnate du jour)' lie only repels me. But when you start doing stuff like this, now you've got my attention.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
No more whining
I don't usually post press releases but this one sums things up quite nicely.
From: VoteNader.org
Call it the no more whining campaign.
Don't tell us about Bush/Cheney.
We know already.
The sewage has risen to the surface.
The question is - what are we going to do about it?
The answer is - Nader/Gonzalez.
McCain/Clinton/Obama talk and talk about change and a better world.
But they are all in the hip pocket of the corporations.
Do they advocate for single payer public national health insurance?
They do not.
Do they advocate for cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget?
They do not.
[...]
Do they stand for reversing U.S. policy in the Middle East?
They can not.
All they can do is whine and complain.
And talk about an amorphous "change."
Nader/Gonzalez on the other hand, is the can do campaign.
We put our people vs. the corporations platform on the table.
And - per your request - we've just updated our issues pages with more detail.
We're working hard to get Nader/Gonzalez on as many state ballots as possible.
And - per your request - we've just launched a clickable state by state map of the country for ballot access.
[...]
If you support a progressive agenda, please support a progressive campaign.
From: VoteNader.org
Call it the no more whining campaign.
Don't tell us about Bush/Cheney.
We know already.
The sewage has risen to the surface.
The question is - what are we going to do about it?
The answer is - Nader/Gonzalez.
McCain/Clinton/Obama talk and talk about change and a better world.
But they are all in the hip pocket of the corporations.
Do they advocate for single payer public national health insurance?
They do not.
Do they advocate for cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget?
They do not.
[...]
Do they stand for reversing U.S. policy in the Middle East?
They can not.
All they can do is whine and complain.
And talk about an amorphous "change."
Nader/Gonzalez on the other hand, is the can do campaign.
We put our people vs. the corporations platform on the table.
And - per your request - we've just updated our issues pages with more detail.
We're working hard to get Nader/Gonzalez on as many state ballots as possible.
And - per your request - we've just launched a clickable state by state map of the country for ballot access.
[...]
If you support a progressive agenda, please support a progressive campaign.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Maybe The Post-Star's afraid to let their reporting speak for itself
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
The corporate media is hypersensitive to criticism, isn't it.
Not all criticism, mind you.
It loves the simplistic 'the media is too liberal/conservative' dichotomy. If both extremes hate you, goes the logic, you must be doing Pulitzer-esque work. It allows them to abdicate any responsibility for substantive analysis.
The kinds of criticism the corporate media doesn't like is accusations that it's shutting out diverse voices. This criticism is stone cold true. Just look at the amount of free corporate media coverage given to the Annointed candidates (McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Obama, Clinton) in comparison to the media's Untouchables (Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel... and that's not even including smaller party candidates). They choose who's message 'deserves' to be heard and then when the rest complain, the corporate media holds its hands up and sniffs, "The public just isn't interested in them."
If you're an ordinary TV watcher and you see tons of reporting and yapping head analysis on the Annointed Ones and next to nothing (except maybe the occasional hack job on 'the quirky campaign of...' and rare yapping head edict that 'So and so can't win') about the Untouchables, then what do you expect? How can a candidate resonate with the public if the public is virtually never exposed to that candidate's message?
The recent visit of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader to Glens Falls exposed this hypersensitivity yet again.
A gentleman named John Thomas of Hartford, NY wrote a letter to the editor complaining about the quantity and quality of coverage given by The Post-Star to Nader's visit. Mr. Thomas felt that both were inadequate.
He complained that the visit of TV personality Rachel Ray got more coverage than the visit of a presidential candidate and one of the most influential Americans of the 20th century. This is factually correct. Ray got more coverage.
Now, it's no secret that I'm a Nader supporter, although I don't know John Thomas. But what bothered me most was how The Post-Star could not resist adding a snotty little Editor's Note to Thomas' letter.
The Editor's Note sniffed that Nader's visit got 'ample play' in the paper. That 'ample play' was a brief preview story and a small recap at the bottom of the local section.
Translation: Naderites should get on their hands and knees and genuflect to the brick red building that they deigned to give Nader any coverage at all.
Well, that's the paper's opinion.
Thomas' letter expressed a different opinion.
Isn't this the very purpose of the letters to the editor and editorial sections?
The letters express the opinions of readers. The editorial expresses the opinions of the newspaper.
Editor's Notes to letters to the edtior are very uncommon in this paper. Usually, the daily only includes them if the writer makes a factually false statement or to clarify something in the letter that may have been murky. Sometimes, it's used to note that the letter writer has some personal connection with the issue discussed.
The general rule of the paper seems to be to let the letter writers have their 15 minutes, so to speak.
None of these applied to Thomas' letter. He didn't say the paper offered no coverage. He said Nader should've gotten more than Rachel Ray.
Yet the paper felt the need to rebuke Thomas for expressing (and very mildly at that) his not demonstrably false personal opinion... which is the whole purpose of the letters to the editor section.
Makes you wonder why the paper is so hyperdefensive.
The corporate media is hypersensitive to criticism, isn't it.
Not all criticism, mind you.
It loves the simplistic 'the media is too liberal/conservative' dichotomy. If both extremes hate you, goes the logic, you must be doing Pulitzer-esque work. It allows them to abdicate any responsibility for substantive analysis.
The kinds of criticism the corporate media doesn't like is accusations that it's shutting out diverse voices. This criticism is stone cold true. Just look at the amount of free corporate media coverage given to the Annointed candidates (McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Obama, Clinton) in comparison to the media's Untouchables (Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel... and that's not even including smaller party candidates). They choose who's message 'deserves' to be heard and then when the rest complain, the corporate media holds its hands up and sniffs, "The public just isn't interested in them."
If you're an ordinary TV watcher and you see tons of reporting and yapping head analysis on the Annointed Ones and next to nothing (except maybe the occasional hack job on 'the quirky campaign of...' and rare yapping head edict that 'So and so can't win') about the Untouchables, then what do you expect? How can a candidate resonate with the public if the public is virtually never exposed to that candidate's message?
The recent visit of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader to Glens Falls exposed this hypersensitivity yet again.
A gentleman named John Thomas of Hartford, NY wrote a letter to the editor complaining about the quantity and quality of coverage given by The Post-Star to Nader's visit. Mr. Thomas felt that both were inadequate.
He complained that the visit of TV personality Rachel Ray got more coverage than the visit of a presidential candidate and one of the most influential Americans of the 20th century. This is factually correct. Ray got more coverage.
Now, it's no secret that I'm a Nader supporter, although I don't know John Thomas. But what bothered me most was how The Post-Star could not resist adding a snotty little Editor's Note to Thomas' letter.
The Editor's Note sniffed that Nader's visit got 'ample play' in the paper. That 'ample play' was a brief preview story and a small recap at the bottom of the local section.
Translation: Naderites should get on their hands and knees and genuflect to the brick red building that they deigned to give Nader any coverage at all.
Well, that's the paper's opinion.
Thomas' letter expressed a different opinion.
Isn't this the very purpose of the letters to the editor and editorial sections?
The letters express the opinions of readers. The editorial expresses the opinions of the newspaper.
Editor's Notes to letters to the edtior are very uncommon in this paper. Usually, the daily only includes them if the writer makes a factually false statement or to clarify something in the letter that may have been murky. Sometimes, it's used to note that the letter writer has some personal connection with the issue discussed.
The general rule of the paper seems to be to let the letter writers have their 15 minutes, so to speak.
None of these applied to Thomas' letter. He didn't say the paper offered no coverage. He said Nader should've gotten more than Rachel Ray.
Yet the paper felt the need to rebuke Thomas for expressing (and very mildly at that) his not demonstrably false personal opinion... which is the whole purpose of the letters to the editor section.
Makes you wonder why the paper is so hyperdefensive.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
A kinder, gentler Empire
This year's version of the empty 'vote for the lesser of two evils' blackmail is that a McCain administration would be Bush lite and soooooo much worse than a Clinton or Obama adminstration, especially in international affairs, that we have to vote for Democrat no matter what.
Turns out foreign policy experts disagree with this 'conventional wisdom'.
They echo the Naderite contention that while both Democrats might tweak foreign policy around the largely inconsequential edges, neither would change it in any fundamental fashion.
Sweeping oratory aside, a President Barack Obama or a President Hillary Rodham Clinton -- let alone a President John McCain -- might chart a course in the world that's surprisingly similar to that of George W. Bush in his second term, summarizes Washington Post writer Michael Michael Abramowitz.
As I've mentioned in this blog before, neither Democrat offers any substantive challenge to the American empire's core tenet. They merely offer the same old militarism but with a more charismastic face. They'll meddle in other countries' internal affairs for the benefit of the multinationals that own them, but at least they'll do it with a smile!
Philip Zelikow, a University of Virginia professor who served for two years as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, echoed that thought. Obama and Clinton's "critique in general of the administration, aside from Iraq, is we are going to be more competent and collegial," he said. "They don't really debate many of the underlying premises of the administration's current policies."
This shouldn't come as any surprise. Both John Kerry in '04 and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in '06 made the basis of their campaigns the premise "Bush's foreign policy is fundamentally right. It's just the execution that needs work."
Sadly, many desperate, self-described progressives bit on this hook, line and sinker.
A kinder, gentler empire is still an empire.
Reminder: if you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
Turns out foreign policy experts disagree with this 'conventional wisdom'.
They echo the Naderite contention that while both Democrats might tweak foreign policy around the largely inconsequential edges, neither would change it in any fundamental fashion.
Sweeping oratory aside, a President Barack Obama or a President Hillary Rodham Clinton -- let alone a President John McCain -- might chart a course in the world that's surprisingly similar to that of George W. Bush in his second term, summarizes Washington Post writer Michael Michael Abramowitz.
As I've mentioned in this blog before, neither Democrat offers any substantive challenge to the American empire's core tenet. They merely offer the same old militarism but with a more charismastic face. They'll meddle in other countries' internal affairs for the benefit of the multinationals that own them, but at least they'll do it with a smile!
Philip Zelikow, a University of Virginia professor who served for two years as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, echoed that thought. Obama and Clinton's "critique in general of the administration, aside from Iraq, is we are going to be more competent and collegial," he said. "They don't really debate many of the underlying premises of the administration's current policies."
This shouldn't come as any surprise. Both John Kerry in '04 and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in '06 made the basis of their campaigns the premise "Bush's foreign policy is fundamentally right. It's just the execution that needs work."
Sadly, many desperate, self-described progressives bit on this hook, line and sinker.
A kinder, gentler empire is still an empire.
Reminder: if you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Ralph Nader to visit Glens Falls
The Tri-County Greens, Adirondack Almanack and Matt Funiciello all report that presidential candidate Ralph Nader will be visiting Glens Falls later this month, surely the only one to do so this year.
Nader will be in town on Saturday April 26. There will be a dinner fundraiser at 6 PM followed by an appearance at the Charles R. Wood Theater. The Wood Theater event will feature a showing of the excellent documentary 'Awake From Your Slumber,' which will start at 8 PM. The film will be followed by a question and answer period with the citizen activist. Click here for more details on both events.
While he doesn't offer empty rhetoric nor is he a corporate tool nor does he support an ad infinitum Occupation of Iraq, Nader will almost certainly be the only candidate on the presidential ballot who's actually taken a strong and correct stand the most important issues facing this country, in stark contrast to the major parties.
He argues in favor of:
-a single-payer, Canadian-style, private delivery, public health insurance system
-cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget, cutting off the corporate welfare kings - and using the savings to rebuild the nation's infrastructure
-cracking down on corporate crime
-reversing U.S. policy in the Middle East and ending the military and corporate occupation in Iraq
...issues that have widespread support in this country, particularly (but not exclusively) among self-described liberals and progressives.
And he notes that Sens. Obama and Clinton, to say nothing of McCain, are all on the wrong side of these issues. And he wonders why so many self-described liberals and progressives will yet again vote for a candidate who's on the wrong side of issues they themselves claim to consider so important.
Many Americans agree with Nader's agenda. The question becomes will such people vote for someone who will advance what they believe in or harm their interests. How can the progressive agenda ever be implemented if progressives refuse to even consider voting for one?
Nader will be in town on Saturday April 26. There will be a dinner fundraiser at 6 PM followed by an appearance at the Charles R. Wood Theater. The Wood Theater event will feature a showing of the excellent documentary 'Awake From Your Slumber,' which will start at 8 PM. The film will be followed by a question and answer period with the citizen activist. Click here for more details on both events.
While he doesn't offer empty rhetoric nor is he a corporate tool nor does he support an ad infinitum Occupation of Iraq, Nader will almost certainly be the only candidate on the presidential ballot who's actually taken a strong and correct stand the most important issues facing this country, in stark contrast to the major parties.
He argues in favor of:
-a single-payer, Canadian-style, private delivery, public health insurance system
-cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget, cutting off the corporate welfare kings - and using the savings to rebuild the nation's infrastructure
-cracking down on corporate crime
-reversing U.S. policy in the Middle East and ending the military and corporate occupation in Iraq
...issues that have widespread support in this country, particularly (but not exclusively) among self-described liberals and progressives.
And he notes that Sens. Obama and Clinton, to say nothing of McCain, are all on the wrong side of these issues. And he wonders why so many self-described liberals and progressives will yet again vote for a candidate who's on the wrong side of issues they themselves claim to consider so important.
Many Americans agree with Nader's agenda. The question becomes will such people vote for someone who will advance what they believe in or harm their interests. How can the progressive agenda ever be implemented if progressives refuse to even consider voting for one?
Friday, April 04, 2008
Hillary: working class hero
One of the key tenets of Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is how she's glomming on to her husband's legacy. That her 'service' as First Lady makes her ready to lead on day one in a way that Barack Obama isn't. Forget for a second that the only official policy role she had ended with a hideously complex plan that failed miserably to gain public support. Let's just go with this idea that she'll head the Restoration of the House of Clinton. Let's go with the idea that she was virtually co-president during the 90s.
The first Clinton administration effectively ushered in the end of American manufacturing. It was already in decline to some extent, but its death knell was the NAFTA and WTO agreements put it on life support. The House of Clinton (of which Hillary claims to have been an integral part) essentially completed the Reagan Revolution. The House of Clinton and the afforementioned agreements completely dismantled both public and workers' health and safety protections in the name of the mythical panacea known as 'free trade.' Or at least, whatever hadn't been previously been annhilated by Reagan-Bush I.
Even aside from the fact that she's far and away the most corporate-owned candidate left in the race in either party, this legacy she's leeching on to makes me truly at a loss to figure out why her strongest base of support is from none other than... blue collar workers.
Why is someone claiming this record, someone who was on the board of one of the most infamously anti-union corporations in this country (Wal-Mart)... getting so much support from unions? Why is someone who claims to have been an integral part of an administration that emascualted worker protections so strongly supported by the working class?
I am truly mystified with this is the case. Can anyone offer me some insight? Even speculation or conjecture is fine. I'm really at a loss trying to wrap my mind around this. Of all the candidates for the working class to attach themselves to, why her?
Especially when you have a candidate like Ralph Nader who's done the exact opposite, who's based not just his campaign but his whole life advocating on behalf of public and workers' health and safety issues.
The first Clinton administration effectively ushered in the end of American manufacturing. It was already in decline to some extent, but its death knell was the NAFTA and WTO agreements put it on life support. The House of Clinton (of which Hillary claims to have been an integral part) essentially completed the Reagan Revolution. The House of Clinton and the afforementioned agreements completely dismantled both public and workers' health and safety protections in the name of the mythical panacea known as 'free trade.' Or at least, whatever hadn't been previously been annhilated by Reagan-Bush I.
Even aside from the fact that she's far and away the most corporate-owned candidate left in the race in either party, this legacy she's leeching on to makes me truly at a loss to figure out why her strongest base of support is from none other than... blue collar workers.
Why is someone claiming this record, someone who was on the board of one of the most infamously anti-union corporations in this country (Wal-Mart)... getting so much support from unions? Why is someone who claims to have been an integral part of an administration that emascualted worker protections so strongly supported by the working class?
I am truly mystified with this is the case. Can anyone offer me some insight? Even speculation or conjecture is fine. I'm really at a loss trying to wrap my mind around this. Of all the candidates for the working class to attach themselves to, why her?
Especially when you have a candidate like Ralph Nader who's done the exact opposite, who's based not just his campaign but his whole life advocating on behalf of public and workers' health and safety issues.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Don't waste your vote
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader (along with running mate Matt Gonzalez) asks why the liberal intelligentsia continues to give their unconditional support to the Democratic Party, despite their continued refusal to act on causes most dear to liberals.
When they came to power, Democrats told us that impeachment would 'off the table' because they have more important things to do.
Like what? Help get us out of Iraq? Extend access to health care to all Americans? Dismantle America's foreign empire?
It turns out that the critical issue that the noble Democrats have been spending their valuable time on, such that they can't address these other issues? Steroids in baseball.
... and Nancy Pelosi strikes out looking.
After over a year in control of Congress, the Democrats have shown no indication that they will get us out of Iraq... or even that they will lead us in that direction. This, despite the fact that most Americans believe the war has been an unmitigated disaster.
Democrats won't advocate universal health care, despite the fact that nearly 2/3 of Americans support guaranteed health insurance for all. At best, Democrats want to nibble around the edges, even though 90 percent of Americans think the health system needs either 'fundamental changes' or 'to be completely rebuilt.'
Democrats won't tackle the bloated 'defense' budget, a budget that's mind-boggingly wasteful even if you exclude the two interminable wars of choice that are undermining our national security.
Democrats won't tackle corporate ownership of government, because they are controlled by corporate money as much as Republicans.
So if the Democrats are too cowardly to take positions on key issues that the majority of Americans support, why exactly should I vote for them?
Why should an anti-war citizen vote for a party that's enabled a disastrous war of aggression?
Why should an anti-militarist vote for a party whose main candidates have not ruled out future wars of aggression against non-threatening countries like Pakistan and Iran?
Why should someone who wants universal health care vote for a party whose candidates wants to make the insurance companies even more powerful?
Why should someone who oppose militarism and an imperial foreign policy vote for a party whose candidates continuously fund these projects?
Why should someone who believes corporate ownership of government has subverted our democracy vote for a corporate-owned party that subverts democracy?
My suggestions are simple. And it's based on a simple question. Do you hold your beliefs in theory or do you actually want them to become reality as soon as possible? If it's the latter, then the suggestions aren't exactly rocket science.
If you're anti-war, vote for a candidate who opposes the war(s)... in action. Don't vote for a candidate who's acted to perpetuate the war(s).
If you support universal health care, vote for a candidate who wants to implement access to health care for all Americans.
If you oppose militarism and empire, vote for a candidate who hasn't enabled it.
If you oppose corporate ownership of government, then vote for a non-corporate owned candidate.
If you really think about it, none of these suggestions are particularly radical. Nothing more than common sense.
For years, liberals and progressives have continually voted against their beliefs in the hope that, despite all evidence, the Democrat nominee would betray their recent record.
At the same time, conservatives and militarists have continually voted in support of their beliefs. They don't pick anti-militarist candidates like Ron Paul. They flogged John McCain back in 2000 when he was anti-theocracy.
In the last decade, which approach has been rewarded at the polls nearly every time?
If you waste your ballot on a candidate who opposes your beliefs, then you'll end up with exactly what you voted for... or worse.
When they came to power, Democrats told us that impeachment would 'off the table' because they have more important things to do.
Like what? Help get us out of Iraq? Extend access to health care to all Americans? Dismantle America's foreign empire?
It turns out that the critical issue that the noble Democrats have been spending their valuable time on, such that they can't address these other issues? Steroids in baseball.
... and Nancy Pelosi strikes out looking.
After over a year in control of Congress, the Democrats have shown no indication that they will get us out of Iraq... or even that they will lead us in that direction. This, despite the fact that most Americans believe the war has been an unmitigated disaster.
Democrats won't advocate universal health care, despite the fact that nearly 2/3 of Americans support guaranteed health insurance for all. At best, Democrats want to nibble around the edges, even though 90 percent of Americans think the health system needs either 'fundamental changes' or 'to be completely rebuilt.'
Democrats won't tackle the bloated 'defense' budget, a budget that's mind-boggingly wasteful even if you exclude the two interminable wars of choice that are undermining our national security.
Democrats won't tackle corporate ownership of government, because they are controlled by corporate money as much as Republicans.
So if the Democrats are too cowardly to take positions on key issues that the majority of Americans support, why exactly should I vote for them?
Why should an anti-war citizen vote for a party that's enabled a disastrous war of aggression?
Why should an anti-militarist vote for a party whose main candidates have not ruled out future wars of aggression against non-threatening countries like Pakistan and Iran?
Why should someone who wants universal health care vote for a party whose candidates wants to make the insurance companies even more powerful?
Why should someone who oppose militarism and an imperial foreign policy vote for a party whose candidates continuously fund these projects?
Why should someone who believes corporate ownership of government has subverted our democracy vote for a corporate-owned party that subverts democracy?
My suggestions are simple. And it's based on a simple question. Do you hold your beliefs in theory or do you actually want them to become reality as soon as possible? If it's the latter, then the suggestions aren't exactly rocket science.
If you're anti-war, vote for a candidate who opposes the war(s)... in action. Don't vote for a candidate who's acted to perpetuate the war(s).
If you support universal health care, vote for a candidate who wants to implement access to health care for all Americans.
If you oppose militarism and empire, vote for a candidate who hasn't enabled it.
If you oppose corporate ownership of government, then vote for a non-corporate owned candidate.
If you really think about it, none of these suggestions are particularly radical. Nothing more than common sense.
For years, liberals and progressives have continually voted against their beliefs in the hope that, despite all evidence, the Democrat nominee would betray their recent record.
At the same time, conservatives and militarists have continually voted in support of their beliefs. They don't pick anti-militarist candidates like Ron Paul. They flogged John McCain back in 2000 when he was anti-theocracy.
In the last decade, which approach has been rewarded at the polls nearly every time?
If you waste your ballot on a candidate who opposes your beliefs, then you'll end up with exactly what you voted for... or worse.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Why the national Dems are useless
The Democratic Party could've spent the four years after the 2000 election looking in the mirror.
They could've spent it trying to figure out how a race involving a sitting vice-president and a candidate as bad as George W. Bush could possibly have come down to a few hundred votes when it should never have been close enough for the Supreme Court to matter.
Or they could've figured out how a state that sent Al Gore to Washington many times, the people that knew him best, voted for his opponent for president.
They could've looked at Ralph Nader's three million vote total and said, "Hey, maybe we ought to be a little less corporate and a little more progressive so we can get those votes back."
The fact that they refused to do so only illustrated the points Nader was trying to make during his 2000 run.
Any entity becomes out of control and corrupt when there's no corrective process. Parties, governments, corporations, people. The Bush administration is a textbook example of this. Only outside forces (smaller parties, independent candidates, checks and balances) can can sufficiently act as that corrective agent.
The fact that the Democrats drifted even further rightward by 2004 by aiding and abetting Bush's war on civil liberties, aggression against Iraq and total surrender to corporate governance, proved not only Nader's points but the relevance of his candidacies.
They still haven't figured out that if they put forward a candidate who will fight corporate control of government, then Nader won't run because his beliefs will be addressed.
Eight years later, too many Democrats are still fixated on smearing Nader for past 'sins' (specifically, giving progressives someone to vote for) instead of trying to advance an agenda that would make his campaign redundant.
If that doesn't illustrate their uselessness, I don't know what does.
They could've spent it trying to figure out how a race involving a sitting vice-president and a candidate as bad as George W. Bush could possibly have come down to a few hundred votes when it should never have been close enough for the Supreme Court to matter.
Or they could've figured out how a state that sent Al Gore to Washington many times, the people that knew him best, voted for his opponent for president.
They could've looked at Ralph Nader's three million vote total and said, "Hey, maybe we ought to be a little less corporate and a little more progressive so we can get those votes back."
The fact that they refused to do so only illustrated the points Nader was trying to make during his 2000 run.
Any entity becomes out of control and corrupt when there's no corrective process. Parties, governments, corporations, people. The Bush administration is a textbook example of this. Only outside forces (smaller parties, independent candidates, checks and balances) can can sufficiently act as that corrective agent.
The fact that the Democrats drifted even further rightward by 2004 by aiding and abetting Bush's war on civil liberties, aggression against Iraq and total surrender to corporate governance, proved not only Nader's points but the relevance of his candidacies.
They still haven't figured out that if they put forward a candidate who will fight corporate control of government, then Nader won't run because his beliefs will be addressed.
Eight years later, too many Democrats are still fixated on smearing Nader for past 'sins' (specifically, giving progressives someone to vote for) instead of trying to advance an agenda that would make his campaign redundant.
If that doesn't illustrate their uselessness, I don't know what does.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Anti-choice 'Democrats'
I see Ralph Nader is running for president this year.
I originally had a different essay written about this but I changed it. Nevertheless, it feels like the movie Groundhog Day. Nader runs for president again. And the same tired, baseless attacks on him surface again.
He is vain. He is an egomaniac. His ego is out of control because he thinks he's the only one who has solutions for this country.
Hillary isn't power hungry. Obama isn't vain. McCain isn't arrogant. But a man who's devoted his entire life (and nearly all of his earnings) to public service is the devil incarnate.
I'm sorry but in my opinion, the belief that you can do a better job than any of the other candidates is the ONLY legitimate reason to run for any elected office.
Let me say that again: the belief that you can do a better job than any of the other candidates is the ONLY legitimate reason to run for any elected office.
His most unhinged critics are not Republicans, but people who pat themselves on the back for being liberal minded.
Nader is a spoiler. He stole votes from Dems in '00 and '04. He elected George W. Bush.
Most people realize that these are just empty lies. Lies designed to deflect the fact that the Democrats are so pathetic that they lost two elections to a candidate as terrible as George W. Bush.
(And let's be honest: the '00 race should never have been so close as for the Supreme Court to matter.)
There is a difference between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Nader.
Legitimate criticism includes disagreement with his policies and priorities. Legitimate criticism includes saying he has the same platform as another candidate. Legitimate criticism includes questions about his ability to implement his ideas. I may not agree with such criticisms but I can accept them as fair topics of discussion within a democratic framework.
Illegitimate criticism of Nader includes saying he shouldn't run. Illegitimate criticism of Nader includes saying that he's a vote stealer or is hired by Republicans. Basically, attacking his integrity for no other reason than he's running for president.
Votes are never stolen (except perhaps from Diebold machines). They are earned. Anyone who says that Nader or Mike Huckabee or anyone else steals votes from an opponent is telling a bald faced lie. A lie that demeans the very essence of whatever's left of American democracy.
Democracy is too important to trivialize it by turning it into just another sporting event with a point spread. Heck, even sports are not decided on paper. So I don't care one iota if the pundits think he's going to win. It's not up to them to decide. It's up to all of us to decide.
Is he going to affect the election? I certainly hope so. I hope he's going to affect the election by putting a further spotlight on the problem of corporate control of our politicians. I hope he gets enough votes that the Democrats will finally get the message that they need for their own sake to tell their corporate owners to go packing.
I realize this is a long shot. If the Dems refused to get this message after 2000, I'm not sure it'll happen this year. But what other progressive candidate even has this on the agenda?
And if the Democratic Party apparatus doesn't get the message, I hope its members will finally acknowledge the sad reality and leave the party.
Ralph Nader represents a point of view that neither Sens. McCain nor Obama is advocating. He represents a philosophy that's diametrically opposed to Sen. Clinton's. I still might vote for Obama. I'd never pull the lever for McCain or Clinton. But Nader is filling a void and no honest citizen ought to begrudge him that.
If he gets a lot of votes, it's because his ideas are popular. If his ideas don't resonate (or aren't given a chance to), he won't get many votes. So where exactly is this crisis that anti-Nader liberals are bleating on endlessly about?
Some people say Nader is an egomaniac because he's offering people the chance to actually vote for a good candidate. How dare they! I can not express how much I resent it when people attack him (or any other candidate for that matter) for giving people another choice. It offends the core of my very beliefs as an American. How can anyone call themselves a democrat, lowercase d, when they do that? Who the heck do these people think they are to unilaterally decide who should run?
If you don't like him, don't vote for him. If you think someone else is better, then make the case for them. It really is that simple.
I know many good and decent people who won't vote for Nader. If you vote for whomever you honestly think is the best candidate of them ALL, I have no problem with that. I will never reproach anyone for voting their conscience. Just treat me with the same respect.
The problem is that many liberals refuse to do that.
In one of the forums I frequent, I read many obnoxious anti-Nader comments but this one particularly stood out:
Its because of Nader that we have had 8 years of George Bush. I do think the republicans hire him to run each time they see the elections getting close. The democrats should just have him knocked off.I don't blame them for trying to stop him. He knows he can get no where but he will take democrat votes as there are a few loonies out there who will vote for him.
I found this woman's comments incredibly offensive. I've read many anti-Nader comments, some fair if misguided, some irrational and unhinched. But this was one of the most insulting things I've read.
Look at what she said in one short paragraph. Because of the simple fact that he ran for president like thousands of Americans before him and because millions of Americans chose of their own free will to vote for him, she made the following claims:
-Nader is responsible for 8 years of George W. Bush
-Nader is a Republican employee
-Nader should be assassinated and if he were, she would excuse the murderer
-Nader steals votes from Democrats
-Anyone who votes for Nader is a loonie.
That's what infuriates me. The way many liberals attack Nader is in reality an attack against those who support Nader. It's not the fact that they criticize him but the way they criticize him.
What they attack is not his ideas. They don't even talk about his ideas because they agree with most of them and they know in their brains that his beliefs are closer to theirs than any top-level Democrat. What they object to most is the mere fact of his candidacy. His candidacy brings to light the discomfort many of them feel in an increasingly unprogressive, corporate owned Democratic Party. Nader's candidacy forces them to face this unpleasant reality. They can't attack his ideas so they attack the character of a man whose integrity is unimpeachable.
They know he's more right on the ideas than any of the major Democrats so, like some talk radio yapping head, they say his mama wears combat boots.
I should be used to this empty nonsense by now but it still annoys me. The reason why is not so much what they're saying about Nader; it's what they're saying about me. It's what they're trying to do to me. These people are calling me an idiot and a loonie. But more importantly, they're trying to disenfranchise me and every other American citizen who might want to vote for him.
These people are just as anti-choice as the anti-abortionists so many of them condemn.
I'm sorry some liberals have such a visceral objection real democracy but they're just going to have to get over themselves.
I originally had a different essay written about this but I changed it. Nevertheless, it feels like the movie Groundhog Day. Nader runs for president again. And the same tired, baseless attacks on him surface again.
He is vain. He is an egomaniac. His ego is out of control because he thinks he's the only one who has solutions for this country.
Hillary isn't power hungry. Obama isn't vain. McCain isn't arrogant. But a man who's devoted his entire life (and nearly all of his earnings) to public service is the devil incarnate.
I'm sorry but in my opinion, the belief that you can do a better job than any of the other candidates is the ONLY legitimate reason to run for any elected office.
Let me say that again: the belief that you can do a better job than any of the other candidates is the ONLY legitimate reason to run for any elected office.
His most unhinged critics are not Republicans, but people who pat themselves on the back for being liberal minded.
Nader is a spoiler. He stole votes from Dems in '00 and '04. He elected George W. Bush.
Most people realize that these are just empty lies. Lies designed to deflect the fact that the Democrats are so pathetic that they lost two elections to a candidate as terrible as George W. Bush.
(And let's be honest: the '00 race should never have been so close as for the Supreme Court to matter.)
There is a difference between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Nader.
Legitimate criticism includes disagreement with his policies and priorities. Legitimate criticism includes saying he has the same platform as another candidate. Legitimate criticism includes questions about his ability to implement his ideas. I may not agree with such criticisms but I can accept them as fair topics of discussion within a democratic framework.
Illegitimate criticism of Nader includes saying he shouldn't run. Illegitimate criticism of Nader includes saying that he's a vote stealer or is hired by Republicans. Basically, attacking his integrity for no other reason than he's running for president.
Votes are never stolen (except perhaps from Diebold machines). They are earned. Anyone who says that Nader or Mike Huckabee or anyone else steals votes from an opponent is telling a bald faced lie. A lie that demeans the very essence of whatever's left of American democracy.
Democracy is too important to trivialize it by turning it into just another sporting event with a point spread. Heck, even sports are not decided on paper. So I don't care one iota if the pundits think he's going to win. It's not up to them to decide. It's up to all of us to decide.
Is he going to affect the election? I certainly hope so. I hope he's going to affect the election by putting a further spotlight on the problem of corporate control of our politicians. I hope he gets enough votes that the Democrats will finally get the message that they need for their own sake to tell their corporate owners to go packing.
I realize this is a long shot. If the Dems refused to get this message after 2000, I'm not sure it'll happen this year. But what other progressive candidate even has this on the agenda?
And if the Democratic Party apparatus doesn't get the message, I hope its members will finally acknowledge the sad reality and leave the party.
Ralph Nader represents a point of view that neither Sens. McCain nor Obama is advocating. He represents a philosophy that's diametrically opposed to Sen. Clinton's. I still might vote for Obama. I'd never pull the lever for McCain or Clinton. But Nader is filling a void and no honest citizen ought to begrudge him that.
If he gets a lot of votes, it's because his ideas are popular. If his ideas don't resonate (or aren't given a chance to), he won't get many votes. So where exactly is this crisis that anti-Nader liberals are bleating on endlessly about?
Some people say Nader is an egomaniac because he's offering people the chance to actually vote for a good candidate. How dare they! I can not express how much I resent it when people attack him (or any other candidate for that matter) for giving people another choice. It offends the core of my very beliefs as an American. How can anyone call themselves a democrat, lowercase d, when they do that? Who the heck do these people think they are to unilaterally decide who should run?
If you don't like him, don't vote for him. If you think someone else is better, then make the case for them. It really is that simple.
I know many good and decent people who won't vote for Nader. If you vote for whomever you honestly think is the best candidate of them ALL, I have no problem with that. I will never reproach anyone for voting their conscience. Just treat me with the same respect.
The problem is that many liberals refuse to do that.
In one of the forums I frequent, I read many obnoxious anti-Nader comments but this one particularly stood out:
Its because of Nader that we have had 8 years of George Bush. I do think the republicans hire him to run each time they see the elections getting close. The democrats should just have him knocked off.I don't blame them for trying to stop him. He knows he can get no where but he will take democrat votes as there are a few loonies out there who will vote for him.
I found this woman's comments incredibly offensive. I've read many anti-Nader comments, some fair if misguided, some irrational and unhinched. But this was one of the most insulting things I've read.
Look at what she said in one short paragraph. Because of the simple fact that he ran for president like thousands of Americans before him and because millions of Americans chose of their own free will to vote for him, she made the following claims:
-Nader is responsible for 8 years of George W. Bush
-Nader is a Republican employee
-Nader should be assassinated and if he were, she would excuse the murderer
-Nader steals votes from Democrats
-Anyone who votes for Nader is a loonie.
That's what infuriates me. The way many liberals attack Nader is in reality an attack against those who support Nader. It's not the fact that they criticize him but the way they criticize him.
What they attack is not his ideas. They don't even talk about his ideas because they agree with most of them and they know in their brains that his beliefs are closer to theirs than any top-level Democrat. What they object to most is the mere fact of his candidacy. His candidacy brings to light the discomfort many of them feel in an increasingly unprogressive, corporate owned Democratic Party. Nader's candidacy forces them to face this unpleasant reality. They can't attack his ideas so they attack the character of a man whose integrity is unimpeachable.
They know he's more right on the ideas than any of the major Democrats so, like some talk radio yapping head, they say his mama wears combat boots.
I should be used to this empty nonsense by now but it still annoys me. The reason why is not so much what they're saying about Nader; it's what they're saying about me. It's what they're trying to do to me. These people are calling me an idiot and a loonie. But more importantly, they're trying to disenfranchise me and every other American citizen who might want to vote for him.
These people are just as anti-choice as the anti-abortionists so many of them condemn.
I'm sorry some liberals have such a visceral objection real democracy but they're just going to have to get over themselves.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Crooked Democrats
I wrote earlier about the Democratic [sic] Party's equivalent of the electoral college and the rigged presidential nomination process which may well lead to Sen. Hillary Clinton's undemocratic ascension to the party's top slot.
A few people pooh-poohed me as being paranoid. Republicans play dirty, not the saintly Democrats.
Matt's Totally Biased Commentary has a salient reminder of just how crooked the Democrats can be. Rather than fight a battle of ideas with Ralph Nader, Greens and other alternative forces, the Democrats try to bankrupt them.
A few people pooh-poohed me as being paranoid. Republicans play dirty, not the saintly Democrats.
Matt's Totally Biased Commentary has a salient reminder of just how crooked the Democrats can be. Rather than fight a battle of ideas with Ralph Nader, Greens and other alternative forces, the Democrats try to bankrupt them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)