Celebrities Attend Anti-War Rally
The Nation magazine sponsors cruise visit by editor, politicians
Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader said during an anti-war rally in Marine Park on Monday that 535 is a key number to ending the war in Iraq.
“It’s not going to change until every one of us ceases being a spectator and focus on 535 members of Congress,” he said.
Hundreds of spectators gathered Monday evening for the rally, sponsored by the Juneau chapter of Veterans for Peace, that was held in honor of The Nation magazine’s Juneau port call of its 10th annual seminar cruise. Nader, Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and The Nation Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel were among the speakers who delivered sharp criticism of the Bush administration and called Juneau citizens to action to help end the occupation of Iraq.
The crowd was strongly supportive of the speakers’ views, and there was little opposition.
The Nation, a liberal weekly magazine founded in 1865 as an Abolitionist publication, has been holding seminar cruises with high-profile speakers and guests for 10 years as a way of off-setting some its operating costs, vanden Heuvel said.
“We often go against the grain,” she said. “We take unpopular positions, so we haven’t made money for about 140 of the 142 years.”
Roughly 420 people from across the country are sailing the Inside Passage with The Nation this year for seminars and panels on subjects that range from climate change to ending the war in Iraq, vanden Heuvel said.
Phil Smith, president of the Juneau Chapter of Veterans for Peace and a subscriber of The Nation, heard about the cruise visiting Juneau and wanted to provide a proper welcome to Alaska’s capital.
“We thought it would be a good opportunity to hear what some of their speakers and guests have to say,” he said.
The high-profile guests offered a good opportunity to shed some light on issues that are important to many Juneau residents, Smith said.
“It’s a fortuitous alignment of people who have something to say and people in Juneau who want to hear it,” he said.
The rally also featured music as well as speeches by local dignitaries, including Democratic Rep. Andrea Doll, Juneau Assembly member Bob Doll and University of Alaska Southeast Chancellor John Pugh.
Many Juneau citizens believe in and support the magazine’s mission, Rep. Doll said.
“We in Juneau go arm in arm with you,” she said. “We are also not afraid to stand up and speak our voice. We’re not afraid to come down here today and be part of this and to speak out and fight for all the things that this country truly does stand for.”
Most of the speakers at Monday’s event called for ending the war in Iraq. Anderson said the rally is meaningless unless the words spoken translate into action.
“Please remember that patriotism doesn’t mean anything, morality doesn’t mean anything, without a willingness to act,” he said.
It is up to the citizens to talk to their elected officials to end the war, Anderson said.
“Stand up for our country,” he said. “Stand up for what’s right. Stand up for our constitution and the rule of law.”
Although Monday’s rally focused on ending the war in Iraq, the cruise has been highlighting many other important issues, vanden Heuvel said.
“The climate, environmental issues, has been at the forefront of this cruise because of Alaska,” she said.
The cruise also has given Nader the chance to visit some old friends in Alaska and focus on other issues he feels are important, he said.
“I like Alaska,” he said. “I helped lobby through the Alaska Statehood Act when I was a law student in the late 50s.”
While in Alaska he wanted to highlight how the 49th and 50th states are overlooked in the presidential election, Nader said.
“No major party presidential candidate has visited Alaska or Hawaii since Nixon in 1960, and that’s disgraceful,” he said.
Nader said he finds it amazing that the people of Alaska don’t demand the candidates to campaign in the Last Frontier.
“You know why it’s overlooked?” he said. “They only campaign in the states where the two parties are really competitive. Because Alaska is Republican and Hawaii is Democrat, why bother? It’s a disrespectful position for the people of Alaska and Hawaii.”
Although Monday was Nader’s first visit to Alaska’s capital, he said he did visit Anchorage when he campaigned for president.
Nader, who ran on the Green Party ticket in the 2000 and 2004 elections, said he has not made a decision about running again in the upcoming election.
“It’s too early to say … I haven’t ruled it out,” he said.
© Copyright 1997-2007 Juneau Empire
Let’s see more celebrities running for office. I hate to be “shallow”, but if we had a celebrity with name recognition who surrounded himself with both intellectuals and practical people, our best, brightest, idealistic & dedicated, it’s a better strategy than protest rallies.
For instance, draft someone like Robert Redford (or someone younger) to run as an independent, with a body of progressive policy advisors/scholars/experts around him. Name recognition, public resonance, press, policy coherrence -> office instead of protest.
(I’m speaking generally here, nothing against Nader. I was just thinking “Hollywood” type celebrities, as opposed to political celebrities.)
Is it really necessary for these people to fly all over to promote this cause (I know it was a cruise but you know they flew to Vancouver or Seattle to catch the boat)? Doesn’t that kind of reduce the impact of what they have to say? They say, “We have to change our way of life. But I’m not changing mine until you change yours.” Is this the best way to convince people of the urgency of the situation?
I don’t get it. New York has a peak oil awareness group. They are showing a documentary about the consequences to our civilization of our oil supply running out. One of the members writes that he is driving in from Maine to see the movie. He’s a climate scientist who should have a good-enough idea of what’s up that he could at least wait until it comes out on video. This strikes me as bizarre.
Peak oil awareness groups are forming around the country. Since nobody wants to inconvenience themselves and do what has to be done - to give up their cars and their habit of flying everywhere when the mood strikes them - they concentrate on growing their own food (admitably part of a solution, but a relatively small one). Many drive to this place in New Jersey to learn about permaculture. The instructor commutes from New Zealand.
Paul who do we have in Hollywood who had the decency to speak out against the invasion/occupation of Iraq, or even global warming besides the Dixie Chicks and Neil Young?
There are plenty of great stars who could get a ton of press if they could find a spine and speak out.
Sadly the USA’s celebrities have proven to be too ignorant or afraid to speak out. It could mean cutting the numbers of millions that they get each year in half. Imagine going from 7 million to 3.5 million per year. Maybe they’re all too stoned out to care.
Hopefully the situation in the USA (and the world) won’t get worse. May the big sick empire totally collapse very soon! The world can’t wait.
Dennis Kucinich for President
http://www.dennis4president.com/
Heads up, politically minded folk. Don’t forget Nader’s 2000 campaign had its biggest turn-outs in Alaska and Hawaii.
Speaking of Alaska, I live in the state. There’s so much Republican corruption and bribery going on, yet they (GOP)continue to pretend they are morally superior. Senator Stevens is really grumpy (as usual) about his residence near Anchorage being inspected by FBI agents.
They (Rethuglicans) have the religious evangelicals all rooting for Bush and the Iraq “war.” All they can talk about is abortion (”killing babies”) and homosexual marriage. When I told one of them, an apparently brain damaged, recovered alcoholic, that Bush didn’t seem to mind killing Iraqi babies — he flatly denied that they are being killed. Their minds are completely closed. They do no reading or research of any kind except to listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch FOX “News” propaganda.
Even the Native people are brainwashed to support the Republicans here. They refused to accept free oil for winter heating from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez because, as they said, he insulted their president George Bush. George Bush, who cares nothing for the indigenous people. He cut funding for Native-American schools on reservations and for their clinics. They are religious fundamentalists, of course, many of whom are ex-alcoholics. It’s amazing how brainwashed and dumbed-down Americans really are. It’s pretty sad.
These elitist, bourgeois, snob-laden luxury cruises by The Nation were one more reason I cancelled my subscription several years ago.
Here I am, cutting gasoline usage to near zero, keeping the A/C off and keeping my vacations close to home, or using Amtrak. Meanwhile, the people who are supposed to be leading us on the left go on ostentatious cruises - largely in order to keep up with their equally rich, opponent-Joneses at the National Review.
How can they be taken seriously when they engage in such stuff.
PJD: I agree with your point about the hypocrisy of Nation cruises. At the same time, it sells. I’m sure the Nation gets some sort of a kickback from those cruises and it needs to, to compete as a publication. The paradox is in order to put up some sort of viable alternative discourse to neo-liberalism, one needs to adopt at least a basic business model. Abstaining from any profit ventures is admirable but very difficult in the global media. I’d rather a magazine like the Nation make a profit in order to thrive than go out of business and have us lose another alternative to corporate media.
Paul: No more celebrities running for office unless they are intelligent, articulate and capable on their own. I’m sick and tired of every political party (Democrat, Republican and Green) going ga ga over rich Hollywood celebrities who may or may not have a brain in their head but have deep pockets and a pretty face. Ralph may not be flashy, he may not make the cover of US Weekly but he’s the most tenacious, intelligent and articulate progressive willing to step up to the plate. That is more than I could ask for.
Bladerunner–Were the flies and mosquitos really as bad on your camping trip as I have heard or no–what was your experience like?
Lillulu–I love your name (makes me think of the cartoon character!) Is there a “Tubby” in your life?
Since Nader’s ego driven presidential bid in 2000 made the difference and, George Bush President, I just don’t care anymore what he says or does. He will never be able to repair the damge he did to the country.
NoJusticeNoPeace:
As someone who, by principle, uses his real name here and on ALL of my political commentary, think about why you’re using an alias.
People fear losing standing, career, etc. I don’t worry about the government adding me to some list because — alias or not — the internet is inherrently traceable. So using an alias only keeps one hidden from his fellow citizen & employer.
But there are other things to be afraid of. For instance, getting killed. JFK, MLK, (perhaps Wellstone, Pat Tillman?), and others demonstrate what happens when someone achieves figurehead/iconic status.
It would take someone with more courage than you, me, or most Hollywood celebrities. Many historical greats served (and survived) on-the-battlefield experiences. They are not afraid for personal safety while they galvanize a critical mass of Americans to, through fully legal and above-board electoral/procedural/ethical means, take back their country.
“Roughly 420 people”
< giggle >
Poet, thanks — I ran across an old comic book in Seattle, and bought it, of the cute little gal. I have a “Tubby,” yes, only he’s not so Tubby as he is muscle-bound (weight lifter).
I can’t believe it,11 comments before someone says Nader stole the election. It reminds me of
the 30 or 40% of the population who still believe that that Saddam was the one who was behind 911. No matter what facts are put in front of them, they still believe it. Some people just
don’t like Nader and nothing will change their minds.
petercschmid: Please provide facts and references to prove your point about Ralph Nader. I’d really like for you to back up your comment with some facts, if you can.
On the other hand, if you can’t do this, I can direct you to credible news stories about the quarter of a million Florida Democrats–why aren’t you attacking THEM?–who voted for Bush in 2000 (SF Chronicle, 11/9/04) and the 94,000 disenfranchised faux felons–most of whom were African American, Democrats or both–who were fraudulently purged from the voter lists by Katherine Harris at Jeb Bush’s command (Greg Palast, Armed Madhouse, pg. 240). These factors, as well as the refusal of Gore to demand a full recount, the failure of Gore to win his home state and the party-line Supreme Court vote selecting Bush as president were responsible for Gore–who actually WON the election–not being named president. FOR THE LAST TIME: IT WAS NOT NADER. Get over it!
By the way his 2000 run was not “ego-driven.” He represented millions of us Greens and other progressives. He was articulating OUR shared views and representing OUR party. So your beef shouldn’t be with Nader, it should be with US. And if you think that WE damaged the country just by exercising our right to vote, and you want to disenfranchise everyone who disagrees with you politically, it is obvious that YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY AND YOU SHOULD GO TO SOME OTHER COUNTRY WHERE YOUR INNER TOTALITARIAN WILL BE APPRECIATED!
“The Nation, a liberal weekly magazine founded in 1865 as an Abolitionist publication, has been holding seminar cruises with high-profile speakers and guests for 10 years as a way of off-setting some its operating costs, vanden Heuvel said.”
This cruise holiday for liberal causes working people to smile because to working people everyday is a holiday for the Nation cruise liberals. How about a bus cruise to working class neighborhoods to share the declining infrastructure and be there to learn first hand what needs to be done in these neighborhoods? Put on some work clothes and boots and join the work to be shared so the “Nickel and Dimed” can see that you know what it is like to be an American disenfranchised from the American dream. Poverty is the number one crime in American. Poverty is created by not having jobs that pay a middle class wage. Liberals! Let’s get out of our comfy chairs and spotlight the urban and rural poverty that surrounds us and then help organize actions to change this horrible waste.
Nader is not a celebrity. He’s a freak, an oddity. He’s a historical footnote. He’s the man that elected George Bush, with a footnote right next to Perot. If we’re lucky, Bloomberg will run in 2008, and a Democrat will get elected even if some idiot like Ralph runs on the left.
Please stop featuring him on this site. There were plenty of other people on the cruise, yet Common Dreams chose to focus on Ralph. That is not my dream.
In our society, celebrities are commodified, just like the latest Prius or what have you. Whether you are Chomksy, Nader, or VandenHeuvel, you are merely entertainment for public consumption. And though I think Cindy Sheehan is an authentic person, in the old existential meaning of the word, same is happening with her. Ours is a culuture that romanticizes invidualism, and singular heros and heroines. Celebrity culture does not cause social change, not.
I suppose Chomsky and Nader and Randi Rhodes and others are a form of entertainment for some. They may inspire others to engage in their own political activism. There are countless lawyers, consumers advocates, authors, teachers and others who have gained insight from “celebrity” radicals.
http://www.adbusters.org does a lot of work on the commodification of society.
That’s a drag, but people still manage to do worthwhile work.
That the Nation is using a cruise to raise funds and build community doesn’t bother me too much. I prefer the cruise ship ran on grease from McDonalds, or maybe utilized sails or something; but, I’m glad lefties are gathering, sharing ideas and enjoying themselves.
I think it’s even better that a person with Veterans for Peace arranged that meeting in Juneau.
We do need to bring mindfulness to our activities and fuel consumption. But I see this as a worthwhile use of carbons.
Nader will probably get some legislation passed to make cruise ships more fuel efficient.
The continuing character assassination of Nader is sad to see.
I thought it was Diebold or the Supreme Court that got Bush elected. Or maybe the fact that Gore, as if to prove Nader’s point, chose Lieberman as a running mate. Or maybe it was the tens of thousands of Florida Democrats that voted for Bush. Or maybe it was one of the many other third party candidates.
Maybe some of the Green Party’s votes went down a Diebold rabbit hole.
For some people, there seems to be a need to hate Nader. That’s certainly the sentiment of the Machiavellian corporatists who have been gunning him for 40 years. The 2000 “vote” sure turned out perfectly for them. “Defeat” Gore and crucify Nader.
Here’s an interesting article on how lobbyists of Big Business manipulated liberals to lynch Ralph.
“Progressives as Pawns: Cannon Fodder for Kerry’s War on Nader” by Stephen Conn on Counterpunch.
http://www.counterpunch.org/conn/0/22004.html
The link is actually,
http://www.counterpunch.org/conn10122004.html
Thanks, Bildad,
That was the most eloquent response to all these Nader-bashers here on this site that I have ever read.
‘Democrats who do not really believe in Democracy’ Yes, that is what it comes down to.
It’s interesting how the Nader bashers promote an incessant march to the right. Eventually they’ll be blaming the election of a Jeb Bush-Cheney ticket for progressives not supporting the Bloomberg-Lieberman “liberal” alternative?
We engage in many useless charges and defenses of Nader but most of us support his posiitons and his views.The country would benefit if he were elected. Despite the fact that he did siphon off 90,000 votes, the other GOP dirty tricks and the Supremes- mentioned here would still have stolen the FL election. Nader should first attempt to work for IRV -Instant Runoff Voting- which allows the voter to select his first second choices- if his first does not win, his vote automatically goes to his second choice. so there can be no “spoilers” Nader could have been the first choice and Gore the second. Gore would then have received that vote. This would prevent people from worrying that voting their real preference would give the election to the worst candidate, we have all been there. Many European countries have this method which works well along with proportional representation of the various parties in the legislatures. I often wonder why Ralph does not work for IRV instead of wasting his efforts in futile runs against the 2 right wing parties who have much more money and power.Plainly he wants his views presented in the election and the media wont do this. He is a great speaker, electrifying and convincing. He could be the champion of IRV as Gore is now the champion of climate change.Anyone know where to e-mail him?
Better yet — if the Democrats are worried about another Nader “stealing” (er…I mean Bush…) they should start work ASAP on a bill to:
* Prohibit ALL electronic voting machines.
* Introduce the Range Vote. (better than IRV, but I don’t want to get into that debate here).
If they genuinely think they are a close second to the progressive community, why didn’t Clinton push through Range or IRV? Why aren’t they working on it now? Probably because they’ll discover that this, indeed, is what they are: a second. If not third or fourth?
The irony is that our corporo-fascist economy demands that workers be competitive, but evidently no competition is necessary in the ostensibly two-party system which is going to put only one party in the booth in November, 2008: Republicrats.
That’s exactly right. People who waste time bashing Nader and third party efforts have plenty of faith in the “democrats”, but none in democracy or the democratic spirit of the people of this country. Hard work will get us there, neighborhood work will get us there, having a clear, oppositional third party voice that stands consistently will get us there. Having one foot in the camp of the “democratic” party as a mainstay won’t. Any work in the “democratic” party should be to break off sections of its supporters and lead them off to a third party effort, with focus not on elections, but on study circles, platform building, presence in the neighborhoods. That’s how we’ll win.
Dear Bildad and Winnetou and all Nader apologists. Let me try to make this case in a less emotional manner than most who viciously attack Ralph Nader have done. No need for that.
To begin with, the facts in Bildad’s original comment are correct. So let me start a category called “All the Reasons the 2000 Election went to George Bush and We Ended up with a Right Wing Supreme Court, a War in Iraq that has lit a Tinderbox throughout the Middle East that may burn for decades, a weakened EPA, a greatly jeopardized planet, world-wide disdain for the USA, 40 million plus without health care, and a change-resistant, neo-conservative government determined to roll back the advances of the New Deal, the Great Society and every other liberal program of the past.”
In that category must go: Florida’s purged roles of valid voters. Voter fraud elsewhere. Gore did not win his home state (why that maters eludes me) and of course, a corrupt, partisan Supreme Court. OK. But in that category MUST be included Ralph Nader’s candidacy and your voting for him. 90,000 votes!
So all I ask is that all of you stop saying Nader had nothing to do with it. When you say “It was not Nader! Get over it” I have to say “OK. It was not Nader exclusively that gave us Bush. It was Nader and (those who voted for him) PLUS the corrupt practices in Florida and elsewhere and in the courts and THAT my friend, is what lodges in all our minds. The question always was “Whose side is he on?” The results in 2000 answered the question. He is in that category.
Is he still? Absolutely? Is he a spoiler” Absolutely. Otherwise how can you explain his “threat” to run in 2008 ONLY if Hillary Clinton is the nominee? What does that say? He will try to spoil it for her and he doesn’t care if that causes the election of Rudy Giuliani. Condemned out of his own mouth as they say.
That’s the deal. It’s not slander. It’s not vitriol and it’s certainly not fiction. As for your claim that opposing your candidate is opposing democracy all I can say is that (I know you’ll hate to hear this) the Two Party System was NOT created to squash democratic opinion. It was designed to force compromise. It’s part of the elegance of our systems of checks and balances. The two-party system requires us to negotiate, horse trade, form alliances and compromise positions in order to consolidate enough power to put pressure on either of the two parties to deliver “the greatest good for the greatest number” which is a compromise in itself. It is a system that is NOT suited to narrow or extremist ideology.
The third party argument is overall a terrible illusion. First, there won’t be just 3. If we really break the system there will be 33. And as we are not a parliamentary form of government in which 3rd through 33rd parties can achieve some form of political recognition and power, 3rd party votes in our system just get flushed down the toilet. They benefit and satisfy the personalities (dare I say egos) of those who vote, but rarely have the impact desired. More often than not, they have the reverse impact. Those who voted for Perot got Clinton. Those who voted for Nader got Bush.
So no one is denying your right to cast your vote for whomever you want. Our Constitution guarantees it. But at the end of the day, and in the view of many Progressives (and old time Liberals) YOUR vote is not the point. Protecting all of America’s people – especially the weakest – is what it is all about. Let me beg your indulgence and tell you my Ralph Nader story.
It was just before the 2000 election when he declared his candidacy on some talk show (I think it might have been Charlie Rose but I’m not sure.) Nader was asked why he was running and he gave an eloquent and precise rationale. I don’t have a transcript so I will paraphrase. He said some thing like ‘I am running for the people who live in dangerous circumstances after the weakening of the EPA and OSHA. I am running for the people who live in fear of job loss and relocation. I am running for the 18,000 people who the AMA says die annually for want of health care.’ In other words, he was running FOR those without government protection, or lobbyists or corrupted stooges in government. Way back in 2000. It was beautiful!
But as the campaign progressed and it became clear he would not become the nominee, what I had hoped and others like me had hoped is that he would hold off until the end and take his power to the convention. But instead of bartering his votes and the considerable influence he wielded (with yes the enormous number of votes from his supporters) he “stayed the course.” Which to me meant that those unprotected people he spoke of so movingly were now secondary to his goals of becoming president (his ego and yes those of his supporters). It felt to me as if he was taking his marbles and going home. He repeated this behavior in 2004. It became about him (and yes YOU) and not the people who were vulnerable and unprotected.
I’m sure you are skeptical about what influence he could have leveraged if he had bartered his votes at the 2000 Democratic Convention,. If so that must be because you are either too young or unaware of how powerfully he pushed our government (and changed our society) back in the 60’s when he advocated product safety standards.
I often wonder why he was so stubborn as to refuse to use his political power to shape the Democratic Party’s agenda. Was it stubbornness? It’s certainly not for lack of his knowing. But then I remembered his roots in the political left where the famous catch phrase of the time was “let’s heighten the contractions.” In other words ACTIVELY HELP things to get so bad that people will eventually rise up and join the movement. But they didn’t. The joined the conservatives because the conservatives spoke to them and not about them as the left (and the democrats) did.
So I was a huge Nader fan until he put the country and its most vulnerable behind himself and his movement. This is why I think the charge of egomania sticks. As for his followers and apologists I can only say if you still support him and reject these arguments it can only be because through some fortunate circumstance you are not and were not affected by the fact that he helped to put Bush in office. You didn’t need health care, reduced college tuitions, or you weren’t in the National Guard, etc. If it didn’t hurt you why would you care – except rhetorically?
So I think YOU need to get over it frankly. You and your guy were contributing factors in the ascendance of George W Bush and his maniacal agenda. And I must put you in the same category as the Bush Supreme Court, the Florida Election Crooks and everyone else who was a Bush Enabler.
What I remember from the 60’s is the line “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.”
It’s OK. Be cool with it. Just stop denying it.
petercschmid says that Nader is the cause of Bush. It is now 7 years later and the Dems are still unwilling to accept responsibility for their failed campaigns. Perhaps if Gore had run an effective campaign and had actually stood up for dealing with Climate change he would have won. The fact of the matter is that anyone who advocates for diminishing democracy by limiting the number of candidates and who refuses to listen to the opinions of other parties has done much more to undermine the wellbeing of our planet than Nader. It is a time to advocate for a better Democracy rather than for a worse one by suggesting that people should not run if you do not support their views or are not even willing to listen to them. Currently the Dems control the congress and we have yet to see any impact. Why doesn’t petercschmid start working on Pelosi to get rid of Bush instead of continuing to whine about the previous failures of the Dems. Work on the current failures and try to fix the current problems. And by the way, what is your excuse for loosing in 2004? That can’t be blamed on Nader. So you must have some excuse for that one.
The last time I ever voted for a Democrat was in 2000. Since then I have not voted for this failed party. I may write in Nader in 2008 if he doesn’t run, but I certainly won’t be voting for the front runner of the democratic party.
Enough already of this talk that Ralph Nader put George Bush in the White House.
That is factually and intellectually as lazy as it is dishonest!
To petercschmid & whoever else thinks that, ponder this: Look at all that the neo-cons have done to install a world-wide control over resources, create an atmosphere of fear and lawlessness, shred our Constitution, steal elections, and remove our rights — all the while working from their playbook since the mid-90’s — the Project for the New American Century. Their plan to remove black voters from the roles in Florida with brother Jeb’s help was but a continuation of Enron’s Ken Lay’s plan to “coronate” W as the unbeatable Republican candidate as far back as 1998 (even though Enron was deep in debt). The plan to “take” the White House one way or another, started YEARS before the 2000 election, and the Florida fix was in well before Nader even entered the race.
Establishment of an anti-democratic dictatorship in the US is a long-term project of some very nasty people who were not deterred by the Constitution nor by the existence of ballot boxes. When you see now what they have done, can you comprehend what they intended to do all along, counting on their friends in the Supreme Court if there were a glitch?? The hanging chads, butterfly ballot, and Green votes only helped cover their scheming, but did not create the desire nor the determination steal the White House. That already existed, thank you very much!
The Democrats who had as much access to this information as you or I, did nothing to stop it, before OR afterwards. Democrats have not yet challenged the stolen elections (Greens have) nor the illegal use of force in Iraq. They have only enabled this takeover with decades of concessions to the Right, including further permitting the concentration of media in this country. Now Murdoch is pal-sy with Hillary. Surprised?
Ralph Nader’s and the Green’s attempt to put REAL ISSUES into the debates and into the public’s consciousness about the abuses coming from the corporatization of our government and our lives was forcefully barred from America’s attention by leaders of BOTH Corporate parties.
State troopers forcefully removed presidential candidate Ralph from the Boston presidential debate building when he had a ticket to get in. A fascist act if there ever was one, and it did not make the papers, much less the TV news.
What is it, exactly, you are defending?
When you attack Nader as responsible for the current mad Regime, you show little or no understanding of the equations of power and the willingness to use force by this ruthless bunch who have stolen our land and heritage.
Ironically it was PRECISELY the third party attempt at waking up the public to what was really going on, that gets attacked for creating the problem. You blame and silence the ONLY ones pointing out the problems, preferring to feel all cozy and comfy with the familiar Democrats who make you feel good, take your votes, take your money, then take you for granted!
It was the enabling Democrats who did not attempt to illuminate the American public with what they, too, knew very well what was going on.
Stop being a willing participant in the dumbing-down of America. If you cannot figure out yet that the Dems only want to share in the pie, and don’t even care if America uses pre-emptive wars and torture to keep control and maintain our gas-guzzling habits in place, then you are not looking, and (sorry to point this out!) are part of the problem.
Sigh. I would never expect to convince a confirmed ideologue. PS: I was talking about all independents who would rather “go down in flames” than compromise with the lesser of two evils (something most of us in the real world must contsantly do).
OK OK You win! Nader had absolutely nothing to do with George Bush’s “victory” and Al Gore’s defeat. It was THEM! Feel better?
Uh … BTW any comments on Ralpie’s threats to run but only if Hillary is nominated? Love to hear you spin that one.
PS: Did you ever read Nader’s comment in 2000 about how America needs to be governed by an intellectual elite? Do you by any chance agree with it?
By the way. I apologize for getting lost and off topic in this comment stream because the article isn’t about Nader … it’s about political/celebrity cruises.
However it all does come back to the same point: Do you seriously expect an uprisimg of proressive people wiiling to risk all and take back the democracy when your target constituency needs massive rock concerts and celebrity cruises to get them together and organized? In a market and incentive-driven culture, you have to expect market and incentive-driven political expression. It’s hardly “takin’ it to the streets.”
Anyhow good luck with the Revolution.
July 27-30 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that found Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) leading former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) by a 47-percent to 41-percent margin.
What if these are America’s choices?
Walt, I dont think there is any harm in getting off the topic if it leads us to discuss the larger issues of elections and how to avoid the stealing.
I dont mind the Nation raising money thru cruises, they will be out of business with the new rates imposed on small mags by the media moguls who got the rates raised for small publications, and lowered for Time and such.
I applaud alank who has it perfectly right. HE is hardly an ideologe for reporting the agenda of the thugs in power. The ideologues are the neocons who have designed PNAC and have achieved a lot of what they were after. He is right that Nader who, after all won legitimate votes, was a less factor in Gore’s loss. The Repugs actually altered the vote by caging and purging and such criminal acts- there’s a difference. Gore would have won if GOP and their Court had not interfered with the recount. Again, Nader’s votes and transfer their votes over to their second choice.