Here is a short list of what you won't hear much of from the front-runners in this presidential primary season. Call them the candidate taboos.
- You won't hear a call for a national crackdown on the corporate crime, fraud, and abuse that have robbed trillions of dollars from workers, investors, pension holders, taxpayers and consumers. Among the reforms that won't be suggested are providing resources to prosecute executive crooks and laws to democratize corporate governance so shareholders have real power. Candidates will not shout for a payback of ill-gotten gains, to rein in executive pay, or to demand corporate sunshine laws.
- You won't hear a demand that workers receive a living wage instead of a minimum wage. There will be no backing for a repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which has blocked more than 40 million workers from forming or joining trade unions to improve wages and benefits above Wal-Mart or McDonald's levels.
- You won't hear for a call for a withdrawal from the WTO and NAFTA. Renegotiated trade agreements should stick to trade while labor, environmental, and consumer rights are advanced by separate treaties without being subordinated to the dictates of international commerce.
- You won't hear a call for our income tax system to be substantially revamped so that workers can keep more of their wages while we tax the things we like least, such as pollution, stock speculation, addictive industries, and energy guzzling technologies. Nor will you hear that corporations should be required to pay their fair share; corporate tax contributions as a percent of the overall federal revenue stream have been declining for 50 years.
- You won't hear a call for a single payer health system. Almost sixty years after President Truman first proposed it, we still need health insurance for everyone, a program with quality and cost controls and an emphasis on prevention. Full Medicare for everyone will save thousands of lives a year while maintaining patient choice of doctors and hospitals within a competitive private health care delivery system.
- There is no reason to believe that the candidates will stand up to the commercial interests profiting from our current energy situation. We need a major environmental health agenda that challenges these entrenched interests with major new initiatives in solar energy, doubling motor vehicle fuel efficiency, and other quantified sustainable and clean energy technologies. Nor will there be adequate recognition that current fossil fuels are producing not just global warming, but also cancer, respiratory diseases, and geopolitical entanglements. Finally, there will be no calls for ending environmental racism that leads to more contaminated water, air, and toxic dumps in poorer neighborhoods.
- The candidates will not demand a reduction in the military budget that devours half the federal government's operating expenditures at a time when there is no Soviet Union or other major state enemy in the world. Studies by the General Accounting Office and internal Pentagon assessments support the judgment of many retired admirals and generals that a wasteful defense weakens our country and distorts priorities at home.
- You won't hear a consistent clarion call for electoral reform. Both parties have shamelessly engaged in gerrymandering, a process that guarantees reelection of their candidates at the expense of frustrated voters. Nor will there be serious proposals that millions of law-abiding ex-felons be allowed to vote.
Other electoral reforms should include reducing barriers to candidates, same day registration, a voter verified paper record for electronic voting, run-off voting to insure winners receive a majority vote, binding none-of-the-above choices and most important, full public financing to guarantee clean elections.
- You won't hear much about a failed war on drugs that costs nearly $50 billion annually. And the major candidates will not argue that addicts should be treated rather than imprisoned. Nor should observers hope for any call to repeal the "three strikes and you're out" laws that have needlessly filled our jails or to end mandatory sentencing that hamstrings our judges.
- The candidates will ignore the diverse Israeli peace movement whose members have developed accords for a two state solution with their Palestinian and American counterparts. It is time to replace the Washington puppet show with a real Washington peace show for the security of the American, Palestinian, and Israeli people.
- You won't hear the candidates stand up to business interests that have backed changes to our civil justice system that restrict or close the courtroom to wrongfully injured and cheated individuals, but not to corporations. Where is the vocal campaign against fraud and injury upon innocent patients, consumers, and workers? We should make it easier for consumers to band together and defend themselves against harmful practices in the marketplace.
Voters should visit the webpages of the major party candidates. See what they say, and see what they do not say. Then email or send a letter to any or all the candidates and ask them why they are avoiding these issues. Breaking the taboos won't start with the candidates. Maybe it can start with the voters.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
55 Comments so far
Show AllRon Paul is important.
By snubbing Ron Paul we sell our selves short.
But there is no such thing as objective reporting. Sigh.
Ron Paul challenges the left to think out side the collective proverbial box.
Most critique is typical left knee jerk reactions to any republican or anyone who's not "us".
He is also being excluded from visibility; obviously he is considered a threat to the establishment.
Also only he and Kucinich even look like the words they say originate in their brain, rather than some focus group.
My vote is going to D.K. but R.P is the runner up.
Wow! I'm in awe. There could be as many as 15 million of you loose in my adopted country? Please Ralph, run again to help us defeat the Hildebeast. The rest of you need to take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and repeat after me - "I am sane. I am sane. I am sane." That's it. Keep it up. There, there you're doing so well. Don't stop. Nobody is after you. There's time.
3 to 5% Remarkable.
No, Ralph. As long as you and others with any clout in this country continue to support the "front runners", you won't be hearing any of those things you mentioned.
That's why I'm supporting DENNIS KUCINICH. He may not be a front runner but he is getting my vote since he is the ONLY candidate who talks about the critical issues confronting this nation at this most important time in the history of our country; and he is the ONLY candidate who is willing to put his ass on the line to try to save the people of this country from a corporate-controlled government.
For what it's worth, you have lost my respect.
Amy takes Dennis through a Q&A of each of the debate questions and he gives his answer.
good show,Hooray for Democracy Now...
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ralph_Nader.htm
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now.
.
http://www.democracynow.org/
(SHADOW DEBATE)
Breaking the Sound Barrier: Democracy Now! Re-Hosts NBC Las Vegas Debate to Include Kucinich After NBC Wins Appeal to Exclude Him
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich was missing from the stage at last night's Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC in Las Vegas after he lost a last-minute legal fight with the network over his participation. Last week, NBC told Kucinich that he had met the criteria for the debate. Then, less than two days later, the network changed the criteria and declared that Kucinich was no longer qualified.
(more...)
good read also will be televised again on their 5:00 pm news report...
.
"Out of the entire U.S. population, those of us that support the things that Nader outlines here only number about 3%–maybe 5% on some of the issues."--goner, 3:06 pm
I think you're mistaken, goner. I suspect opinion polls would show about 60% in favor of almost every item Nader lists. (Michael Moore said roughly the same thing before the 2004 presidential election.)
Why don't more politicians push these popular issues? I have no idea. And why when politicians like Dennis Kucinich do push these issues are they unable to gain traction? Same answer.
"Out of the entire U.S. population, those of us that support the things that Nader outlines here only number about 3%–maybe 5% on some of the issues."
That's why they call us Left Wing Wackos.
Loo. I agree it is a mystery. Also, there is a big article about Kucinich not being allowed to participate in the debates. A bigger story would have been why Ron Paul wasn't allowed to participate in the NH debates. He carries a much greater percent.
Common Dreams has been ignoring Ron Paul, and that is a big mistake. Yes, he's a Republican but if you listen to him, his agenda defies traditional categorization.
Ron Paul is energetic, bold, intelligent, and very anti-war.
Snubbing Ron Paul puts CD in the category of Fox News.
Don't try to reason with the Naderhaterz, redgeek. They have a target for all their rage that can't fight back, and they won't give that up. Besides, it's easier to fantasize that banning third parties, oppressing independents, and other such simplistic anti-democratic "reforms" will solve everything than it is to face systemic corruption, lack of recourse to the law and influence on government, and bipartisan criminality.
It's telling that none of the two leading Democrats or their defenders are talking about reinstituting limits the executive branch's powers.
What hasn't Ron Paul been mentioned here? He supports many of the items in Mr. Nader's article. It's just that the networks, etc., never allow him a chance to speak (or even report that he came in 4th in Michigan). Check out www.ronpaul2008.com.
At 1:57 pm, Tuesday, Galen wrote:
Everytime I read something like this from Mr. Nader I am amazed that the corporate powers that be have allowed him to live.
If Nader were running and considered a serious presidential contender, e.g. he had 15 percent or more in national polls, I think what you are alluding to would surely come to pass. Too many here and in the US generally tend to forget all the barriers to real change. I guess those of us who remember hearing the news of MLK Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy have an advantage.
It really is kind of hopeless. I mean with a bunch of dumb, docile and subservient critters, the powers that be can pretty much do anything, and have been doing so, and get away with it so long as the critters can eat, drink and entertain themselves. What might they be planning to do that would wake them up and rile them so, that caused them to go to so much effort in the past few years to put in the apparatus (legal, technological, and hardware) to put the country in lock down mode if needed? Food for thought.
As said earlier, there may be 3-5% who are aware, and they are probably all on some kind of list now and will be the first to get disappeared when the moment of truth comes.
Thanks Ralph. Keep speaking and writing, we need your voice.
Vega Rowe January 15th, 2008 12:46 pm
"Why doesn't he mention that Dennis Kucinich is very outspoken about many points on his list?"
Vega: I feel your pain but Ralph said: "...what you won't hear much of from the front-runners..."
Unfortunately Dennis Kucinich isn't a front runner nor will the MSM allow him to be. That's why they excluded from the debates.
redgeek - were you answering me?
I'm an officer in the Oregon Green Party, and I'm dead serious: if he wants the nomination, he has to stop shilly-shallying or he'll create another mess like 2004. The delay is a major hassle for party organizers.
Furthermore, if he waits very long, Cynthia McKinney, an excellent candidate, will have the nomination locked up. That means another fight at the convention and a split in the party. That's my nightmare right now - and Nader's, too, if he means to run.
His comments on Edwards read as an endorsement whether he meant them that way or not. I assumed it meant he didn't want to run (I wouldn't, in his shoes - truth is, he's earned a chance to lay back.) I wasn't the only one.
If you have his ear, tell him he needs to make his position clear, and soon.
redgeek---thank you for clearing up that matter so eloquently---it was heartbreaking to watch Gore on C Span refuse to hear the pleas of African American reps. It was his Hall of Shame moment. But I fear you will never convince the Nader haters---they are stuck and they can't or won't extricate themselves from their blaming paradigm. Sad, really.
Correction Post #2:
Ralph Nader did not cost Gore the election. Ralph Nader did not cost Gore the election. Ralph Nader did not cost Gore the election. Ralph Nader did not cost Gore the election.
1. A full recount showed that Florida went to Gore. Gore never asked for a full recount.
2. The Senate could have investigated voting rights allegations and done something about the Florida election. In his last session as Vice President chairing the Senate, EVERY single member of the Congressional Black Caucus asked to be recognized to speak to ask for an investigation. All that it would have taken was ONE senator - or Gore himself - to recognize them and allow them to speak and present the evidence of violating voting rights.
Not only did Gore not recognize them and allow them to speak, Gore specifically asked the one Senator willing to open the Florida can of worms - Barbara Boxer - to stay silent.
You've seen this on video if you watched the opening scenes of Fahrenheit 9/11.
So, what do you conclude? Gore would rather step on black people's voting rights and away from his own political ambitions than rock the boat of the status quo. Which was why the election was close anyway. I mean, hell, Gore did not even win his own state of Tennessee.
Ralph Nader did not cost Gore the election. Ralph Nader did not cost Gore the election. Ralph Nader did not cost Gore the election. Ralph Nader did not cost Gore the election.
And you can ask Gore himself.
A few corrections, post #1:
1. Ralph Nader did not arrive late for the Green Party debate as was mistakenly printed in the SF Examiner. For his own reasons, he did not appear on stage with the other already declared candidates. He has not yet declared. I expect him to, but not yet.
2. Ralph Nader did not endorse Edwards. He said that Edward's anti-corporate rhetoric was refreshing. He has tried to clear the air on this (on the air with Tom Hartman).
ON THE SUBJECT OF EMPIRE……..
22nd amendment………
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Why doesn't the president's wife become president when the president dies?
IT'S BECAUSE SHE WASN'T ELECTED!!!!
It is about
Clinton fallacies.
A natural contradiction, Clinton's experience, "ill be capable of running the white house on the first day" is implicitly tied to her association with Bill Clinton, her 'familiarity' with the white house. Therefore the converse is true; when Hillary Clinton is president Bill will also be president (then maybe he can fluff up his resume by his association with his wife. Maybe he'll make UN Sec General if Hillary's successful… Yahoo!!!!). So Clinton will be her own lady when she's president but Bill won't have the influence she had on her husband when she was first lady. In a way this is Democratic payback on all of us for the fabricated elections in 2000 and in 2004. For Al Gore and Bill Clinton's spineless tendency to support a Clinton Presidency down the road rather then fight for the election they actually won. It was politically calculated from H Clinton's Senate Victory. So you want to rig an election, no problem my popular wife will take the nomination and Fuck You I'll be president again. Folks this is V Putin, B Bhutto Néstor/Cristina Kirchner. I agree with the criticisms directed against Senator Obama. But I believe he had every intention of running for president after he was elected to the senate and He intentionally positioned himself (by making bellicose statements about Iran, continuing the war in Iraq) to appeal to middle of the road Democrats and Republicans, that's the message; new leadership? unity. C'mon folks we are commenting on a progressive web site about the state of the Democratic party. Any candidate, including Edwards who already ran on a national ticket with Kerry, is held to the financial wherewithal of the Democratic Party (read corporate interests) Can we at least have a sense of humor? The show will play itself out despite our dour feelings about it.
Okay, it's true the Democratic party is not a progressive institution. That's a given. It's true it is a charade, a macabre form of entertainment. The Situationist's dilemma poised in Guy Debard's the Spectacle of the Society. The political phenomena that we experience collectively despite our particular ideological bent will exist, appreciate for what it is. Just take the total amount of Nader voters and say a 1/5th of the democratic vote and add it together and it (the 'educated' progressive…) will still be a small percentage of the general voting population. And you know, what's the point of being angry with them (Joe and Jane and Sherise and Muhammad and Ling 6 pack)? It's kind of like victimizing the victim. Poor uneducated voters who don't read political commentary or reference politicians or people who have refused to examine alternatives to neo-liberal structures. It's important to remember the red/blue map from the 2004 election and the red/blue/purple map of the 2006 mid-terms (which was predicated on a strong anti war vote in the democratic party). How can the Dem's win in 2008? By changing the dynamics of that 2004 map. It's that simple. It doesn't have anything to do with populist rhetoric from multimillionaires who made their money by taking percentages of settlements from people who were exploited by the capitalist system. Simple, he profited from the disgraceful state of affairs. Then after he accumulated enough ducats. Voila! Edwards can buy a senate seat and become a national player. Decisions that were anchored in oppportunities presented by the power of resources (think of the rich white man reminiscing about the interests of all of us victimized people ). Oh right !! The Dem Party is bought and sold by corporate interests that are hell bent on screwing all of us. Yeah to an extent that's true. But what about Kucinich, Fiengold, Leahey, Waters, Conyers ??? I agree all politicians have their problems (Obama: bellicose language about Iran, War spending ect…) However I would encourage readers to visit the Communist party of the USA site to read their review of the 2006 midterms (….i.e.. US workers voting against war, the cpusa understood the mandate of the people to oppose war despite the fact this battle occurred in the ranks of Dem's and Repub's) The point is all politicians and political parties are multifaceted and every facet of their armor isn't necessarily evil, it's practical. Actually it's just the status quo. To survive as a politician/ political party you have to look at politics as a game. Obama lists poker as one of his favorite hobbies, as noted by his bio at Wikipedia. Perfect, the question is do you trust him? Is he authentic? Or if he isn't authentic why? what drove him from his authenticity? I understand that policy positions and voting records are important. But to what degree? It seems politicians don't always hold to the power of their corporate sponsors (feingold, waters, leahey) but they also don't always follow through with their promises (Clinton's/healthcare). So intuition, character, political sensibilities and personality do have something to do with our selection process. Look at their biographies and it's a telling story. All 6 people (top three Dems plus spouses) running for presidents are lawyers. They all graduated from prestigious law schools (Clinton's/Yale, Obama's/ Harvard, Edwards/UNC). So one thing we can ascertain is all 6 people running for president have a deep understanding of US Jurisprudence. But who are they? Did they go for the cash? How did they use their cash? Who did they represent as legislators? What were their choices? What did they do out of office? How have they positioned their friends and family members to positions of power? This may seem very simplistic and naïve. But decisions people make as they mark out their careers is relative to who they are. Not to be too over judgmental, I'm just saying it's relevant. I think Kucinich wins big here. A person who lived in a car as a homeless adolescent in Cleveland. Also as a person who was the first of his family to graduate from college. I respect Kucinich and support him as a candidate who has demonstrated his support with votes for logical reasonable socialist solutions to our predicaments. But Americans are not ready for socialism, it isn't just the mainstream media that projects the truth to us it's actually somewhat of a reality. For example I can't count the times I've interacted with a working class poor person (i.e. a person making less then $15,000 a year) who will use very nationalist ideology (us/them, US/Islamo fascists) as a framework to justify US imperialism or outright classist and racists judgments upon others. Are the people just a reflection of the MSM ? Or is it merely a reflection of the post military/industrial/Imperialist/consumerist mindset. I don't know. But if you support Edwards I love you, if you support Kucinich, I love you, if you vote Obama I love you, if you vote Huckabee I love you, if you vote McCain I love you. And so on. If you are so frustrated with the dems and repubs why not vote communist (cpusa) or socialist it seems a lot of the criticisms at this site (especially the Edwards comments)are put in the context of Marx (go……..Marx) I agree Marxist analysis is most useful in understanding class disparities but why not vote for the CPUSA, In other words I whole heartedly endorse the 10 key green values, I'm an ethical vegetarian who recycles and I believe class views and environmental views are not mutually independant and in fact both have to be recognized if we're to experience fundamental 'change'. Anyway why all the bullywho about the greens it's now 2008. Hey where are these GREEN congressional seats? where is the GREEN state legislature seats? WHERE ARE THE GREEN STATE SENATE SEATS? I do not see green party signs in my neighborhood. A green Party USA is not present in my city and I see little coverage of Green Party Politics outside of annual conventions, posts at progressive sites like CD, and a handful of pet projects pandered to the press (and where's the difference here folks?). Of course every four years I hear the echo of Nader as people contimplate his fourth run for president (i supported Ndaer twice). Did ya ever wonder why people feel compelled to run for president season after season? (Nader, Kucinich, Edwards, Debbs, Keyes, McCain). Maybe it's because the rest of us 300 million people don't cut the mustard? Ya think? So we're spewing Marxists analysis without out considering the CPUSA or the Socialist Party USA as legitimate alternatives. Why? So why are the Marxists, socialists, communists considered a real threat, unmentionable by us PROGRESSIVES? If you foist socialist messages upon the uneduacted masses you end up with situations like the USSR and Huey Long (all the kings men), breeding grounds for ugly despotism. Maybe John Edwards can help us on that one. No?
A couple of references
Democracy Now 1/14/2008 (amy we love you, thank you Melissa Harris-Lacewell for stating the obvious about dynastic rule)
Kurt Vonnegut short story "Harrison Bergeron" made into a TV film (great commentary on what the presidential election isn't about . Bruce Pittman 1995,)
3 Bios….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Clinton (Chelsea is a reflection of her parents Imperial desires, think Queen Elizabeth II as you read the bio)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_obama
vote your conscience but if Kucinich or Edwards drops out, please consider emailing them to pledge their delegates to Obama to stop Imperial rule (literally).
RE: MMEO, 7:37 pm. It goes back a lot further than Truman or the 1800's. It was Plato or Aristotle or one of those old dead Greek guys (somebody might know who)that said it a coupla thousand years ago, to paraphrase: A government's function is to invent an enemy and turn the peoples' attention and hate towards that enemy as the cause of all the country's troubles, so the population would not realize it was the government itself that was the true source of the people's misery. That's worked all down thru history, and still works very well. Worked great for Adolph in Germany, textbook case.
Why did Ralph endorse Edwards??? Because he's so "electable." Makes no sense.
Ralph,
I'd add another thing -- perhaps the most important set of issues to me personally, and I believe our country culturally:
* Reducing the work week to 32-35 hours, increasing vacation time, and paid maternal/paternal leave.
People don't have enough time to attend to their families, hobbies, civic and cultural engagement, etc.
I'd just like to insert a few comments about the popular support for the Empire, responding to the(I think it was) young lady above who said that "we" [progressives] represent only five percent of the vote.
Recall if you will what Hermann Goering said about the methods of fascism:
"Tell the people you are under attack, and that they have to fight to protect the country. It doesn't matter whether it's a republic or not, a democracy or not, they all do the same."
That has been the basic modus operandi since Harry Truman: we have been under attack by the 'Communists', and now recently by the 'Islamofascists', and in both cases it turns out that the enemy was/is ill-defined, vaguely threatening, and to a large extent mythical. No matter.
Why do you think that the population of the United States of America should repond any differently than the population of Germany in the 1930s, or the population of Britain in the 1800s? Once the leaders have cried that we are under attack, and used Pearl Harbor and 9/11 to frighten us, hasn't our response been completely analogous to that of other countries (Serbia comes to mind)?
"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all fo the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
By us, people of good will, pointing out the fact of American imperialism, we can increase the understanding of our rational fellow citizens. Maybe not all of them. But many more of them than have caught on so far.
I Have been at odds with Mr. Nader since 2000, but I have to admit, this article is golden. Ralph said it all.
Notice how the Democrats are not at all meek and mild and afraid of a fight when it comes to attacking anyone on the left like Mr. Nader and the Greens. Yet, when it comes to the Republicans and the corporate agenda in Washington, the Democrats suddenly become this wimpy little rat-dog that whimpers and hides under the table and won't even bark.
The Democrats are a party that is perfectly happy supporting the Republican agenda and the growth of corporate power in this country. The only thing they really oppose and will fight at any time and at all costs is any rise of a progressive movement as a political force.
That tells you a lot about the Democrats and whose side they are really on. Hint, they are not on our side. The question is, why on earth should we be on their side?
PS ... NBC has this level in power in large part because of Bill Clinton's Telecom Act of 1996. That lovely law, pushed by Clinton and the Democrats and signed into law by Bill Clinton was what enabled today's media monopolies. Earlier generations had had enough sense to forbid a small group of corporations from having such a lock on public discussion ... and by extension democracy itself.
Of course, you can just be happy and content listening to Obama parroting Lewis Black's wonderful line .... "KEEP FALSE HOPE ALIVE!"
Put this list together with the other story where NBC is excluding Kucinich from the debate in NV.
This list of items would probably cut into corporate GE's profits. General Electric owns NBC for those who don't know.
And, the one candidate in the debate who might possibly bring up these issues is Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Edwards plays around the edges of some of these, but seems rather reluctant to really go head on into these issues.
So, put them together and what you see is NBC working to maximize its corporate profits by removing from public discussion a discussion of these very areas that are key to a larger debate in America about corporate power in what was supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And of course, you see the big-time Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party itself doing nothing to limit or prevent NBC's distortions of the political process.
Ralph,
Would anyone be able to direct me to comments that Ralph Nader has made regarding his views on economist Henry George?
Thanks.
John
You won't hear Obama or the press tell Bill Clinton to shut up. Obama could say (but won't) that he still has his law license. Clinton surrendered his Arkansas license for five years and remains a disbarred attorney, banned from practicing before the Supreme Court of the United States because he lied under oath. Obama might say (but won't) that he, like Clinton, enjoys being adored by beautiful women, but he hasn't made a practice of seducing them. Not on the job, and not off the job either. He might say (but won't) that his wife wouldn't tolerate such conduct on his part and would never be so corrupt as to facilitate his infidelities in exchange for a promise of political power. He might point out that history already judges Bill Clinton, Democrat, as less progressive than Richard Nixon, Republican. He might say that Bill Clinton will be distinguished always and forever as an impeached president and is today an embarassment to his party, if not a millstone around the neck of every Democrat. Clinton needs to get out of the way, and somebody should tell him that. Somebody should tell her that.
Hell, you won't really hear the front-running candidates take positions on much of anything. Current campaign-management philosophy is that you can only get in trouble by clearly enunciating positions.
Go get 'em Mr. Nader.
Ralph,
Blah, blah, blah. Stop it, please. You need to apologize for the 130,000 dead in Iraq. Their blood is on your hands. You knew what you were doing when you elected Bush. Do the right thing. Apologize or shut up.
And this is what you should expect from Hillary: She will go back on her words. She has proven herself here at the Michigan Primaries: "Had Clinton not gone back on her word, this whole 'debacle' never would have occurred," Schuttler says. "But instead she decided to remain on the ballot to secure herself a potential default victory. Because of this, supporters of other Democratic candidates were left with no option on the ballot." While an unabashed Obama supporter, Schuttler is a staunch Democrat whose ire over those he feels are culpable prompted him to act.
"Governor Granholm is partially to blame for this fiasco," Schuttler says. "Notice that the day after Hillary said she would remain on Michigan's ballot, Granholm endorsed her. She claims this is because Hillary, by staying on the ballot, is supporting Michigan's causes. But if this is so true, why hasn't Hillary visited Michigan since the primary season began?"
amacd,
You forgot: "Killing Hope - A History of US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" by William Blum.
We have the impending death of the greatest single mass-murderer in my lifetime - Indonesia's (and CIA favorite) Suharto. What any candidates says on the occason of his death, if anything, will be interesting.
"If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently.
I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce that America's global military interventions have come to an end.
I would then inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -- oddly enough -- a foreign country.
Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90 percent and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions and sanctions. There would be enough money. One year of our military budget is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year.
That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd probably be assassinated."
- William Blum, 2003
Adjusting to the reality that the candidates we like won't get elected, here is a strategy that will get them appointed instead: Edwards/Gore, Edwards/Redford or some such combination with a high probability of winning that is not dictated by the DLC. Edwards would appoint Ralph Nader as Attorney General, EPA Chief or to the Supreme Court, Kucinich for Dept. of Peace, Chomsky as Secretary of State, Mike Gravel for Dept. of Direct Democracy, Amy Goodman as Press Secretary, Cynthia McKinney and progressive muckrackers to Justice, FBI, CIA and every other available post.
The Repugs got to where they are by uncompromisingly appointing the most regressive people they could. We need to counter this by the most progressive appointments, not by giving away any advantage in the name of bi-partisanship.
We're all dreamers here. We hope that America will wake up, but we're not acknowledging the true numbers here. Out of the entire U.S. population, those of us that support the things that Nader outlines here only number about 3%--maybe 5% on some of the issues. Like you, I'll continue to vote my conscience, but I know this is all going to go down badly at the end of the day.
I'd also like to send a shout out to all of you stooges who do corporate America's bidding by continuing to vilify Nader.
And most damningly you won't hear the word, Empire from anyone ---- not even in a whisper.
Check even this article and posting.
No, you won't hear the word; empire, even though it is the sum of all our sorrows domestically and in foreign imperialist wars.
No, you won't hear the word; empire --- as in the global corporatist Empire that has destroyed our democracy and hides behind the facade of this damn 'Vichy American' phony government, corporate media, and Ponzi economy.
Well sure, you can hear the word; empire, if you read Hannah Arendt's timeless warning that, "Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home."
And you can hear the word; empire, if you read Chalmers Johnson's deadly "Sorrows of Empire", or Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival", or David Korten's "When Corporations Rule the World", or Dave Harvey's "New Imperialism", or Michael Handt and Antonio Negri's "Multitude", or Gabriel Kolko's "Age of War" (The U.S. confronts the world), or Neil Smith's "Endgame of Globalization", or Al Gore's "Assault on Reason", or NiallFerguson's "War of the World", or Paul Street's "Empire and Inequality", or Bob Reich's "Super-capitalism" , or even Francis Fukuyama's "America at the Crossroads", or a hundred other insightful authors.
But you'll never, never hear the word empire used by any corporate vetted candidate in America.
queeensbee is blaming Nader for Bush's theft of the 2000 election.
Reality:
Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA into law (without even pretending to care about safety or environmental standards) during his first year in office, resulting in an alienated Democratic Party base that allowed the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. This resulted in weakening the Democratic Party throughout his presidency, leading to a close 2000 election that allowed Bush to steal it.
Bill and Hillary further weakened the party in 2006 when they actively campaugned for "independent" GI Joe Liebermann who was running against Democrat Ned Lamont in Connecticut.
I've been a Green since the first Gulf War precisely because most of the Democrats suck.
While Kucinich may be a Green registered as a Dem, the Democratic Party is where good ideas go to die. They are the left wing of the corporate party while the Republicans are the right wing of the same party. The two conspire to make things safe for corporate domination. Why doesn't Kucinich leave the Dems and help build a true alternative?
I will again vote Green. At least the Greens have some explicit values: Peace, democracy, sustainability - three unambiguous ideals I can support.
Ralph Nader still lives (thank God and the Goddess), but the corporate powers that be, in both major parties and in the MSM, have made him Public Enemy #1. I mean, he's single-handedly responsible for bringing us George W. Bush, isn't he?
But there are still venues where his message can be heard. Fortunately, for all of us. Now if we could just wake up the rest of the country....
By the way, Edwards 2008.
get the f**k out ralphie. thanks to your last bit of rhetoric, an unfair election was a actually a cakewalk for the repukes. maybe your analysis has validity.... but think about the impact of the last 7 years on this country. think about what a difference there would have been with al gore. have a nice day.
Nader-Kucinich 2008!
Everytime I read something like this from Mr. Nader I am amazed that the corporate powers that be have allowed him to live.
Ralph, run for president in the Green Party if they will have you. Then work to build the only national party in America while supporting true progressive in the Democratic Party like Kucinich and soon, Cindy Sheehan before, during and after the 2008 election. Build a progressive political alliance over time Ralph. Your 2004 platform and Kucinich's and the Green Party Platform are substantially the same. Help us unify.
"You won't hear much about a failed war on drugs that costs nearly $50 billion annually. And the major candidates will not argue that addicts should be treated rather than imprisoned. Nor should observers hope for any call to repeal the "three strikes and you're out" laws that have needlessly filled our jails or to end mandatory sentencing that hamstrings our judges."
We could implement anti-drug-abuse education beginning in kingergarten for a billion dollars a year and put the other $49 billion toward Medicare For All. This is a health care system that works very well with an overhead of about 4% compared to our current private insurance company driven system at an overhead of 35% a year. Yes, there is fraud in the Medicare system, the overwhelming amount perpetrated by health care providers, but this exists in the current "private" system as well. Will logic ever prevail? NO. Now when the politicians, like Hillary Clinton, are wholly owned by BIG INSURANCE and BIG PHARMA. People, its getting nearer and nearer time to throw a few casks of tea into Boston Harbor.
I voted for Ralph. He is that last person, telling the truth. The U.S. Government has worked to dismantle the protections he gave the U.S. people. As a corporate attorney himself, WHO ELSE could give us the Truth about the corporations ? He may be the last honorable public figure, who has not "politicized" himself and sold-out his direct and truthful message. Here in Oregon, the logging corporations of Weyerhauser and GeorgiaPacific are doing the legal-number on the forests, and getting legislation NOT to compensate anyone, NOT to be overseen by anyone; it's the Bush Model. The "free trade" model. The United States is in trouble. BUMPER STICKER: A country BY attorneys, FOR attorneys
The only way for any of these issue to be heard is for all workers to rise up and change the rules in whatever way they can.
Ralph, you've just described, almost verbatim, DENNIS KUCINICH'S platform. Too bad he's not a "front runner" and too bad you won't stand up and support him. Maybe if you did, he might get somewhere in this election.
Sad to say, the majority of the American electorate isn't even paying attention. If they need to get more uncomfortable in order to do so, I imagine that will come now that economists are shifting their talk about recession from maybe to will be.
Even paying attention is hard to do when the flow of information is controlled by the Ministry of Information.
kathyodat
Why doesn't he mention that Dennis Kucinich is very outspoken about many points on his list? Including: a call for a withdrawal from the WTO and NAFTA, a call for a single payer health system (Kucinich is already a co-sponsor of HR 676), a reduction in the military budget (Kucinich's plans would include a Department of Peace), a consistent clarion call for electoral reform (Dennis is fighting by the book when mainstream media try to shut him out of debates).
Say it with me: Dennis Kucinich, Dennis Kucinich, Dennis Kucinich, Dennis Kucinch!!
The obvious accuracy of Ralph's list casts a light on the hopeless stupidity of lesser-evilism. Lesser-evilism is the political philosophy that says you can achieve good results by supporting those who systematically dodge the truth (ie, the entire Dem Party except the few marginalized "mavericks"), & by savagely attacking those (like Greens, socialists, & Ralph himself) who do speak important truths.
Great platform, Ralph. So are you running? If you want the Green Party nomination, you need to say so SOON. Arriving late to the debate in S.F. didn't help. The party means to run someone and run hard. Let's not have another fiasco like 2004.
Thank you Ralph Nader for that bit of truth. I have been following you since my college days in the US, and, as a Canadian whose life is always profoundly affected by the elephant next door, I still feel deeply grateful for your voice of sanity. Integrity is a high calling; in your case it provides a sense of hope at home and elsewhere, in that there are people like you who dare to swim upstream in a river of conformity to blind comfort.
We also need people like Ralph, Walter Cronkite, Bill Moyers, and groups concerned with campaign reform to speak out and support the non-corporate sponsored candidates to appear in front of the nation at the debates. Their progressive views that our nation needs to hear are being muzzled and censored!
Excellent list, Ralph.
Please keep speaking, keep writing. We need your voice.
I'll do my part.
btw
R.P. said he would pardon ALL non violent drug offenders that are locked up in the prison system…how about that.