'My Number One Priority Is to Protect You'
Like other families, the Bush family eats, uses medicines, and relies on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assure the safety of vast amounts of both products.
Like other families, more and more of the food and medicine you consume is coming from other countries where the FDA has very little inspection authority. Nearly 80 percent of active pharmaceutical ingredients are imported from foreign countries.
Hardly a day goes by without a news story recounting or disclosing casualties or serious perils from contaminated food and medicines. Many of these and other medicines have seriously harmful side-effects or lack of efficacy.
President Bush is the leading authority in the country when it comes to making FDA an adequately funded, staffed, and empowered agency to urgently fulfill what he says repeatedly is his top priority-to protect the safety of the American people.
So how is the FDA doing under his watch? A troubled agency for decades, politically undermined and deficient in budgets, the FDA is now more burdened and besieged than ever. Its budget last year was $ 2 billion - the price ten years ago of one B-2 bomber. Here are the FDA's own words:
"More than 250 different foodborne illnesses are food safety threats. Based on Centers for Disease Control estimates, 76 million Americans become sick, more than 300,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 die each year from foodborne illnesses. Recent outbreaks highlight the need for increased resources to strengthen food safety...."
The FDA's other major responsibility is to "approve safe and effective drugs and medical products in a timely way and ensure that medical products remain safe."
In recent months, there have been many drugs implicated in preventable heart attacks (Vioxx); one thousand lives lost each month (Trasylol); increased risk of heart attacks (Avandia); hundreds of adverse effects, 4 fatalities so far (heparin from a Chinese factory that the FDA did not inspect. It confused its name with another factory.)
The flood of essentially unregulated, uninspected products from China keeps making headlines. Polluted seafood from fish farms, defective tires, lead-painted toys, poisoned pet food, ingredients in products that appear to be, but are not, made or raised in the USA. Country of origin labels are often not required.
What is called "free trade" with China is really corporate managed trade that ships factories and jobs to China, or contracts with Chinese firms that operated in a Wild West atmosphere. The products are then exported to the United States along with all the hazards and defects allowed by this communist dictatorship.
President Bush is not only doing nothing about a huge trade imbalance with China resulting in huge borrowings from China; he is also allowing the products of corrupt corporatism in China to send products that flow into the bodies of American consumers, American patients and American children.
As the New York Times wrote: "Instead of strengthening the government's regulatory systems, the Bush administration has spent years cutting budgets and filling top jobs with industry favorites. The evidence of their failures keep mounting..."
Similarly over at the Department of Agriculture, meat and poultry inspectors, authorized by laws we helped pass starting in the late Sixties, are, by and large, not backed up by their superiors. Instead, they are reprimanded or reassigned when they stand firm to protect the food supply against politically-connected companies.
The FDA still, decades after its founding, does not have subpoena power. Its food inspection system, especially for imports, is pathetic. Both the FDA and the Department of Agriculture need stronger law enforcement and mandatory recall power with full White House backing.
In his eighth year of office, President Bush has not been a leader of the country toward comprehensive legislation that would no longer leave Americans defenseless in the markets of food and drugs. When just one drug takes 1000 American lives a month (see CBS 60 Minutes, February 17, 2008), you better believe this is a national security matter that President Bush should pay focused attention to, even if no suspected terrorists are involved.
However, his ideology is one of no-law-and-order, no regulation, that is, of these corporate outlaws and their profiteering, reckless practices. President Bush and his Party's campaign chests are filled by these very corporate interests.
As a result, the FDA shakes from one crisis after another, from one blunder after another, from one missed opportunity for prevention after another.
Yet, he still says that his top priority is "maintaining a culture of life," and that "my number one priority is to protect you."
President Bush owes the American people, in a major national address, an explanation and very soon.
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
182 Comments so far
Show AllFor the record I'm an avowed independant. Not a Democrat, not a Republican. I voted for Nader in 2 Presidential elections. But this time I will NOT vote for Nader. I will vote for Obama.
This country has been going through a very dark time. Cynicism is running rampant throughout the world and people have lost faith in humanity. This country, due to its size, its power, and its economic strength, affects everyone on the planet. When America goes through a dark period, the world goes through a dark period. George W. Bush is the most hated leader on the planet right now. Because of his wars and policies, humanity has literally taken a huge step backwards. People are more fragmented than ever, people live in fear. This is a moment in history that is calling out for an exceptional leader. A man (or woman) of ideas, great wisdom, intellect, compassion, and the charisma to inspire millions.
I believe that Obama is that man. He's not a revolutionary. No. But he is someone, who like JFK, could instill hope. Because right now thats what this country, and this world, need more than anything. Hope that not all leaders are greedy and hell bent on destroying everything in their wake. Hope that a leader can make decisions that will benefit future generations and not just himself and his circle of friends. Hope that a leader can unite people and not just divide them.
This is why, though I supported Ralph Nader in the past, I don't support his decision to run now. Ralph has been marginalized beyond recovery with the last election. His reputation as a "spoiler", whether accurate or not, will continually follow him like a dark shadow and completely prevent him from having any positive impact on the election.
Its sad but true. Nader will not be taken seriously, and in fact, be seen as not just a spoiler, but someone lacking reason, or possibly even sanity.
Obama may not be as progressive as Kucinich, but in a climate where Hillary is perceived as a "liberal" one has to wonder how much of reality Kucinich could have ever been at this moment in time.
Baby steps. But baby steps in the right direction. For sure.
To me that's what Obama represents.
Atta-boy, Ralph! I am unemployed (downsizing) and cannot contribute more than my best wishes and my vote.
sjb
NADER "MY NUMBER ONE PRIORITY IS TO PROMOTE MYSELF"
Progressives? a joke you have become.
No platform, no party-just once every four years loud whining about things, but lemming silence in-between.
Well I ainn't confused, eff the Republicans.
Nader's last line of bs was there was No Difference between the Repubs and Dems; well Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for work on climate change and Bush skipped Kyoto and is on of History's great mass-murderers.
Great Big Differences.
Differences!! But Vote McCain for Progress. It is your right to do whatever you want....how freaking sublimely stupid. Rove's wet-dream; 'Progressives'
left hand or right hand?
is the answer they demand
would you rather we cut off your left hand or your right hand
what part of the question don't you understand?
this is how i feel every time i go into the voting booth
a choice between two candidates i feel are not telling me the truth
where is my choice?
who represents my voice?
all i see are empty promises never kept
the rat stole the cheese while the cat slept
the lesser of two evils is no justification
for choosing the leader of any nation
would you rather we cut off your left hand or right hand?
i don't believe this mentality will lead us to the promise-land
i am right handed so it would be far worse to lose the right
but it's my left that gives the support where i find my true might
to lose either hand is completely unacceptable
and anyone who forces this choice on me is just contemptible
what i choose is that i have the opportunity to make a real choice
and with my vote acknowledge those who acknowledge my voice
what's wrong with picking someone based on their chances to win?
i find that question so ludicrous i almost don't know where to begin
we treat our elections like it's the super bowl
that our team wins is the most important goal
and candidates treat our votes as an entitlement
so as a result the parties perpetuate the establishment
they are selling us a propaganda campaign in order to get elected
but then the same favors are owed to the same people no matter who is selected
i cast my vote even though i was told it wouldn't count
now shall i support a party where my influence has no amount?
it's back room politics that has disenfranchised me
nothing is different from what i can see
i wonder just where was the candidate of change
when we democrats of florida where treated like we had mange?
i shall stand with those who stand with me
no matter on what party they happen or not to be
what is important is that my issues they choose to address
that is the measure by which me they can impress
are you going to represent me
or are you going to represent some lobby?
will my voice count when i am in the minority
and you are being pushed about by the majority?
can i trust you to stand up for what is right
or do i have to worry about knocks in the night?
an enemy of the state to be taken away
with a political president who has nothing to say
would you rather we cut off your left hand or right hand?
we are the losers when we submit to this command
i will not be a party to my own demise
if enough people believe then real change will arise
we should all vote for the person we consider best
and trust the same from all of the rest
imagine the world we can conceive
if we all voted for who we believe
instead of a resigned practicality that maintains the status quo
through a two party system that turns on who raises the most dough
if the vote we cast is always against the other
the one we elect will represent anouther
we should be voting for someone instead
then we could all start to move ahead
that is when i will believe that anyone can grow up to be president
no matter from what barrio or hood they may happen to be a resident
i shall be proud to be an american on that day
because we shall have found anouther way
so for the good of the people i now hereby state
i shall be voting for ralph nader in 2008
Thanks for running Ralph, even if there are people who like voting for no choices and don't learn anything from history.
The Democrats and Republicans are the same, always blaming each other when real change doesn't occur(at the expense of the people) and running negative ads because, ultimately, they have NOTHING to offer the American people. And to say that the deck is stacked against us without even trying to do something about it is to play the victim and complain. To follow idiots who want the SOS by voting for either of the 2 major parties is insanity! But, of course, anybody who wants to keep beating themselves with a stick hasn't learned.
Even if the Democrats get in, things won't change! It's B.S. Talk by either Reps or Dems is CHEAP! It's like listening to Andy Kaufman wannabe Daniel David!
Thanks, Dad. WE love YOU too.
Actually, Obama IS briniging up those issues. His latest speeches have spoken of the need for a "quick withdraw" from Iraq, full health care reform for all, a proposed free education program, with a service program for all who recieve help, for stopping foreclosures and an end to NAFTA/GATT, etc. More importantly, he is bldg a huge mass movement.
As to the second point, Nader has NO credibility as a candidate. Further, although I know that many on this blog would like to artificially connect Dennis Kucinich and Nader, but, I assure you, there is no connection and as long as Nader works to split the people's struggle, there couldnever be one. Dennis is a personal friend and I am in one of his commercials in the Cleveland area. He is facing a severe challenge from a candidate who is extremely well funded by big business/zionist forces in that area. I, along with many unionists, have been working each weekend to help reelect Dennis (who IS an ACTUAL national treasure)!
Any credibility that Nader had, based on the good work he'd done many yrs ago, is long past gone. In 2004 he got very few votes, and this yr he is only a joke. Within the labor movement, minority communities, other mass movements, he is not only marginalized, he is hated for his promotion of disunity.
Why isn't Obama bringing up these issues? This is why Nader has credibility as a candidate--he's picking up the slack that the Democrats (except Kucinich and Gravel) are always leaving for him.
jozef---
You have absolutely no understanding of what it takes to "overthrow" something!
What it takes is a massive movement by the people, not a little isolated, sectarian movement. I asked before, and nobody has taken me up, what Nader hopes to accomplish in terms of helping the American people by running his isolated little campaign that has less than zero chance of winning anything?
Nader was a Union buster himself, when his own workers tried to organize. The vast bulk of his money in the previous campaign, and I'm sure it will be in this one as well, came from right wing Republicans.
The question is whether you are with the American people. have suffered with them and understand the crying need for changes, or whether you think this is some kind of little game, and you are willing to help our enemies by splitting the progressive movement.
I cannot think of any possible thing worse to be tagged, any possible worse insult, than calling someone a SCAB!! That, in fact, is what Nader is, a STINKING SCAB, whose only interest, besides self promotion, is working for our enemeies to sow disunity!! TO HELL WITH NADER AND ALL SCABS!!!
oberthrowthebastards in his post says, "Go away, Ralph. Go away and don't come back. Youve got nothing to say. You did your part in 2000 to screw this country royal. Now we've got to fix it somehow, but preferably without your so-called 'help.' Please put yourself out of our misery." And then goes on to suck up and coddle the bastards telling the man that can overthrow the bastards to go away. As Nader would say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results each time. Been there. Done that, in fact every 4 years since 1972. Never again.
We need to look at our own history. Great change came about when huge people's movements were able to combine forces with wider relatively moderate reform political movements.
That was the case in the 1930's, when Franklin D Roosevelt ran for president, as a relative moderate Democrat, at a time of great crisis in our nation. A huge people's movement, fighting for unemepolyment comp, jobs, social security, public spending, against fascism, etc., was present and was able to work with/push FDR to the left. The result was the New Deal and massive positive social, economic changes for our people.
At the time of the FDR presidency, most on the left shifted, seeing the tremendous possibilities that the FDR/New Deal/People's Movement represented. However, the old Socialist Party, with Norman Thomas, attackedFDR as "just another capitalist" amd ran/worked against the New Deal. That great old party, which had elected mayors' even Govenors, became a mere footnote in history, as they isolated themselves.
The other case that jumps out at us is that of Lincoln. Facing the greatest crisis in our nation's history, Lincoln turned toward the huge Abolishtionist Movment, working with them and abolishing slavery, winning the civil war. However, at the time he ran for president in 1860, the many in the Abolishtionist Movement saw Lincoln as "too moderate," due to his position that he'd leave slavery alone "where it now existed," and only stop its expansion. Those folks voted for John C Fremont. Fremont today is a great trivea question. Nader might hope to make it to that level!
Today, we have a huge, massive, really revolutionary possibility! There are absolutely no guarantees, of course. It is certainly true that both political parties are corporate ones, but they ARE NOT THE SAME! They represent different sectors of that class, and at this time the planets are lining up and we can have an allince with them to change society. Mainwhile, OUR political party, (as I see it), is the labor led people's movement. We must do what we can to bring relief to our beaten down, suffering people. Future generations won't care if we "voted for the best platform," history demands of us to seize the time, strike when the iron is hot, to bring about that needed change when the possiblities existed to do so.
Thanks, but no thanks, Ralph! If you really believe what you say, if you want to help make history, help us build the labor-led people's movement and elect a government that can actually help us bring about the changes our people so disperately need .
Thanks, Ralph, but no thanks.
Go away, Ralph. Go away and don't come back. Youve got nothing to say. You did your part in 2000 to screw this country royal. Now we've got to fix it somehow, but preferably without your so-called "help."
Please put yourself out of our misery.
au: Good point! I hadn't thought of that!
I like Obama and am guardedly optimistic about what his presidency could mean for America. However, it seems to me that some folks in the progressive community are down on him for being a corporate democrat and more of the same.
I disagree and wonder if Nader supporters and other supporters are looking for some ideal that is not realistic in the current political climate. Are they more critical of Obama because they don't trust a front-runner? Are they afraid that victory for a reasonable and decent candidate might mean an end to their endless desire to complain? Or maybe they are legitimately concerned that Obama will be a complete sell-out and triangulator like Clinton I. But what evidence do they have of this?
These are just some thoughts. I'm curious to hear what others have to say.
I think union has a great point here. Now is not the time to complain about where the democrats are less than ideal. I like single-payer health care incidentally so does Obama (he thinks it isn't feasible given current political and economic realities); but seriously the enemy Bush, the neo-cons, etc must be defeated. You cannot tell me that Obama is such a corporate warmonger that his policies will not be different from McCains in ways that will matter to millions of Americans.
We should be building coalitons and organizing instead of handwaving and hoping that Nader will change the face of American politics. One person has never done that--it takes a movement and Ralph Nader doesn't look like a movement to me.
We are the change that the country needs, not Ralph Nader, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich or anyone else. We can build a mainstream progressive coalition but it will mean reaching out to some folks we don't completely agree with. This might mean compromise. Unfortunately, it's an important element of democracy and not necessarily one that Nader gets.
OBAMA '08
Thank you, Unionguy. I live in Pittsburgh, and have seen working folks destroyed over and over.
It's true that there are more similarities than differences between the two big parties. And that both parties are tools of the corporatocracy.
But,it is also true that small differences can cause or prevent huge suffering to people who are just surviving on the edge. The repubs delight in ripping up what little remains of the "safety net". And with every rip, some poor person falls into the water below.
You guys continue to have a discussion about politics, about "the Democrats," etc. What I keep trying to get across is that; It isn't about "the Democrats!"
It is about the misery and suffering that Bush and the ultra-right, with their corporate allies, have forced onto our people. Right now, it is about using the electoral process to unseat our worst enemies and gain some relief, even new gains, for the American people. THAT is what 'IT' is about! It most assuredly is NOT about Ralph Nader!
In order to defeat the corporate/ultra-right, it will take Unity on a level we have not been able to acheive before. It will take especially overcoming racism on the part of white Americans. The corporate, ultra-right, fascist alliance running the Republican Party has the support of the richest section of the ruling class in our country. They have massive powers, including almost total control of the mass/corporate media. It will take a real struggle for unity if we are able to elect a more progressive government, and finally win gains for our suffering people.
The alliance required to defeat the ultra-right includes, by necessity, forces from labor, minorities, women, forces for peace, environmentalists. It must widen itself to include new folks, who haven't previously been involved in politics. We also must win over former Bush supporters. As well, it is an alliance that includes working class and poor folks, middle classes and even sectors of the ruling class that see the need for change, (for their own reasons, but still here now).
To break this precious unity, there needs to be real, extreme reasons. I challenge the Nader supporters to answer a couple extremely important strategic questions;
First--- What is it that Nader can actually accomplish in terms of helping the American people defeat their worst enemies, the Bush/Republican machine, by splitting the progressive effort?
Second--- How does Nader being separated from the huge progressive movement in any way advance the cause of the people fighting for change?
Also--- In our nation's "winner take all" (no proportional representation) elections, what can a Nader run for President actually accomplish, except splitting the progressive movement?
Finally; When the entire American people are rising up for needed changes, how can Nader splitting the movement and running, posssibly even be good for the Green Party, (since they will be isolated from the people/movement)?
I've finally figured out the 150+ year old game of the Republicrats -- simple foils. They rely on one another to scare people to vote one way or the other. Few people seem to be voting FOR Democrats or FOR Republicans. Rather, they voting AGAINST someone in the other party. People have gotten elected in spite of themselves over the decades.
If the Democrats are worried, where's been the call for Range or IRV? What sort of VP will Obama pick? Will they reach out to the 30-45% of Americans who won't bother voting in November? Or will they blame the candidate who's talking anti-nuke, pro single-payer, out of Iraq, clamp down on corporate crime, etc.?
If they see Nader as needlessly redundant, let's see if they tap Kucinich (or Nader himself) as VP. On the contrary, on the contrary.
Nothing against you either, everyone should vote their conscience. That's what democracy is about. I would fight for your right to vote for whoever you believe in. Really it's cool. And hey TruthHeals out of the 3 viable candidates left I think Obama is the best.
I'm a democrat, voting for Barack Obama, sorry you're running and hope you do very poorly in the general election because democrats need to win this time. But I have nothing against you personally.
Funny thing is that if you mention Nader the Democrats work themselves in a mouth-foaming lather of vitriol, pus and hate. Just ask one to cave in, surrender, vote a Republican nominee or judge and its like, no problem. Ask a Democrat to vote for a Republican measure like the "Stimulus Peanuts Package" and they quickly and happily cave in, bend over, and help their buddies the Republicans. Democrats save all their fire for third parties. They work hand in glove with Republicans. I could make a long list of Bend-over_cratic cave-ins, but how about just a very partial list:
Your sold out Democrats buddy:
1) Your Democrats voted to give W the green light for war.
2) Your Democrats funded W's war.
3) Your Democrats refuse to impeach W.
4) Your Democrats allow illegal spying.
5) Your Democrats allow W to trample on the constitution and torture.
6) Your Democrats helped out Mukasey.
How's that for starters? Look enough said, go vote for your God damned Democrats. I won't. Go Ralph or go anybody but Obama or Clinton, the Obillarys, the establishments safe choice.
The Democrats love to blame Ralph Nader for their woes. If Gore would have been a better candidate people like me wouldn't have voted for Ralph.
Sorry, Democrats don't automatically own my vote. They along with the Republicans don't own the political system try as they might to keep 3rd parties off the ballot.
Ralph Nader didn't give us W. The cowards in the Democratic party that sold out did. Your Democrats caved in, Gore bent over and you know the rest, we got W. Gore won, he just didn't have the "cojones" to keep fighting.
Gore's running mate Joe Lieberman is campaigning or McCain. What have your Democrats done to stop W except bend over time and time and time again?
Good grief, just look at their leader, Nancy Pelosi, your speaker, said impeachment is off the table. Green light W.
As much as the undemocratic Democrats hate other parties that are dissatisfied with them, 3rd parties have the right to run and we have the right to vote for them.
Let's just wait and see if your undemocratic Democrats end up overturning their supporter's choice by their undemocratic use of "Super Delegates. Now that wouldn't be a surprise."
Lastly, living in California affords me the luxury of voting for a third party without getting a Repug elected.
What I find of real interest in this "discussion" is its almost total divorce from the harsh realities faced by the American people. Its like some on here are talking about a little board game, and the suffering of our people have no place in their game.
No, Nader certainly was not the only cause of us having Bush in office. It's that he helped and that he has absolutely no understanding of what he has done, even at this late date.
That asshole ran around the country telling people that there was "no differnce" between Bush and the Democrats. Well, maybe the folks on this blog are independently wealthy. Maybe they somehow avoided what has occured to our nation's people. I know I, and the people I hold dear, did not. I was one of the 3,000 Republic steelworkers whose pensions and helath care was stolen, after the company used the bankruptcy laws to pull it off. Bush replaced the head of the pension board (PBGC) and they ruled that the company could do it. Sherrod Brown, my congressman, and even Hilliary, helped us fight. We had five suicides at my local!
We have suffered the worst redistribution of wealth, from working folks to the super rich, in our antion's history. Bush put us in a war for lies, and it is working folks that are fighting it and paying for it. As for "no difference," 90% of the Democrats in congress are voting to end the war, and for working folks. That 10% that votes with Bush is enough to support his policies.
We had to strike Goodyear in Akron last yr when they tried to stealing worker's and retiree's health care and pensions. John Edwards walked our picket line, spoke out for us. Obama helped our members in trouble in the Chicago/Gary area. And where was our "national treasure," Nader? I know where he wasn't! He was no where near the fight, like always. That is just as well, because our members know the role that scab bastard played in helping bring down the suffering on our heads and have no use for him!
Today, while the unions, mass movements, are working to build a huge movement to defeat our enemies and win health care, pension rights, right to organize, end the war, for new "green" jobs, etc, again, I ask, where is Ralph?
Same place he's been, by himself, unconcerned for the misery his ego-driven spliting tactics have caused. Instead of helping with the fight, he's busy promoting himself!
To Hell with Nader, and all SCAB bastards!!!
Either we have a democracy or we do not. When we exclude candidates because of their views or because we do not like them or their past we become part of the problem, not the solution. If exclusion is the kind of electoral process you want, then we are little better than the other oppressive nations that limit participation.
I agree. But what if I were to run for president tomorrow. Should I be able to debate or should I have a certain level of public support?
Most voters want to know that their candidate has a chance of winning, right? If they were voting for losers all the time they wouldn't feel included in the process. I know, because I've voted for quite a few losers.
I would acutally be in favor of a coalition system where social democrats and greens could sway the majority dems. At the same time we need to recognize that this would also mean more influence for libertarian cooks and totalitarian cooks. Very honestly I don't mind that racist-totalitarian voices don't get much play because they're far out of the main stream. I think many progressives have a message that is palatable to the mainstream. We just need to continue organizing.
Progressives have made a difference in this country, but not through electoral politics alone. Nader will always be great for his consumer advocacy and social activism not for his presidential runs. Civil rights did not come from JFK or LBJ it came from committed citizens who were pissed off! Let's get pissed off and make some change instead of blaming Nader for Bush!!
Ralph WILL be in the debates. Count on it. Look to Mike Bloomberg jumping into the race and with his money, just like Ross Perot did, he will force the Republican and Democratic Parties to include him in the debates. Having a billion $$$ of his own money to spend will make it happen. At that point, expect a law suit by Nader to insist on being included also and winning the right to do so.
I am NEVER happy that ANYONE is excluded from the debates. What is this? Either we have a democracy or we do not. When we exclude candidates because of their views or because we do not like them or their past we become part of the problem, not the solution. If exclusion is the kind of electoral process you want, then we are little better than the other oppressive nations that limit participation. Why not then change the name of your party for it is anything but "Democratic". Shame on you democrats.
And think of this. If Saint Al Gore had actually taken his rightful place as president, today your Democratic candidate next in line for the presidency would be, Joe Liberman! Who knows. He may still get his chance. He might be John McCain's running mate.
And what did the Democrats do over the past 8 years knowing that Ralph Nader might run again? Did they reach out to disgruntled former Democrats like me? Nope. They did no such thing. They insulted, abused, criticized, and otherwise lambasted Nader voters. Dudes, get the drift already. What comes around, goes around. Try something different.
to be fair let's blame America's war crimes on Bush & the neocon & not ralph nader. and if we're playing the blame game, i think we should blame republican election fraud & democratic spinelessness.
NADER 2000!!!!!!
OBAMA 2008!!
A question for all of you?
How much should we support open access to debates from all parties? How much popular support should a candidate have to participate in debates?
I'm perfectly happy that marginal figures such as those representing racist points of view such as Pat Buchannan and Ron Paul aren't allowed in the debates. We can't exclude them because they're racist, but we can exclude them because they are demagogues with small but frightening followings. What makes Ralph Nader different? I think there's a difference but do we (progressives) have the voice and courage to make our voices more mainstream?
As progressive populists we should have a message that appeals to more than a few freaks. Unlike Ron Paul's paranoiac followers, we have a message that has resounded throughout American History and are here to stay.
I'm a more conservative Naderite and think the important thing is to build the progressive wing of the democratic party and force out the DLC. I don't want to see all kinds of fringe parties.
I would approve of third, fourth, fifth, etc. parties if the U.S. adopted a coalition style government. If we don't adopt such a system third parties will always be a form of protest vote--and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Third parties are a great way to push the democratic party leftward. I voted for Nader in 2000 in hopes that I could vote for a more progressive democrat in the future. Maybe this person is Barack Obama.
I still find it goofy on the part of ANYONE to blame Nader for the 2 million Democrats that voted Green in 2000 when 6 million Democrats voted for Bush and....PLUS!... Nader had NOTHING to do with the 27,000 "bad" vote ballots thrown out by our own Republican Election Supervisor...80% of which came from the top 4 Democrat area precients here in Duval Co. (Jax FL)...WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A PEEP from the local, state OR federal Democrat Party. Blame Nader? Try blaming the Democrats for at least picking a right wing neo-con Independent for Gores' running mate in 2000!
Don't the Democrats see that I "blame" them and Gore for Bush's win over Nader? LOL!
"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."
Nannie, I agree with you wholeheartedly - Since Kucinich stepped down, my donations are currently backing Nader. Unfortunately, the reality is the American people will pass right over this extraordinary man (Nader) who has done nothing but put his talents and energy toward the plight of the common American citizen --- As far as the election of 2008 goes, he'll be blocked out of the debates, he won't receive coverage on FOXNEWS, MSNBC, etc [the unfortunate minds of the American masses of the 21st century] unless, of course, the coverage is adverse. The American people will come away from this election with the same old view: "Nader is egotistical!" "Nader is a Spoiler!" "We need to vote for the lesser of two evils, and Nader is ruining it for us!" "He is going to take votes away from Obama or Hillary!" Need I say more?! The American people on whole will not alter their thinking or call to action unless their homes are taken away, their jobs are lost, or their sons, daughters, friends, boyfriends are drafted. NIMBY is very, very powerful.
We are dealing with an American mentality that thinks its important to ask Obama: "Why are you not wearing an American flag on your lapel?" One of the few reasons Obama is deemed unpatriotic by the tight-ass, white-ass, narrow-minded conservatives. I cringe when I read this sort of crap. It is so empty, so shallow -- so false - it is embarrassing.
I hate to sound like a defeatist, but if you read Zinn's current article on Commondreams...people need to act--- to strike in masses -- to protest change in an unprecedented way...reform programs like The New Deal would not have come about without the bold action of the American people at the time. We Americans had temerity at one point in time. Where has it gone? Protesting on a fenced-off/permit-friendly street corner in NYC is not going to cut it anymore. What are we afraid of...well, that's easy...REAL CHANGE!
First of all, let me say I am proud to have voted in 2000. I also resent the fact that democrats act like they deserve our votes regardless of who they're running. Voting against Gore was, in many ways defiance of eight years of triangulation, NAFTA and welfare reform. Democratic attacks on Nader showed what a sorry state the Dems were in.
I respect Mr. Nader's run at the presidency in 2008. He has my vote if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination. But I think that I can say that with Barack Obama I can vote my conscience while still voting Democratic. This doesn't mean I agree with everything Obama stands for. I wish he were tougher on corporate crime and wanted to cut the military budget. That being said, I think Obama has some real progressive in him based on his work as a community organizer, a civil rights attourney, and as the most liberal member of the senate. Obama wants to bring people into the process and recognizes that change depends on grassroots organizing. Maybe instead of looking for a progressive savior in Kucinich, Edwards or Nader we need to organize in the way Ralph Nader always has to create positive progressive change. I think President Barack Obama is the best man to create a political environment in which progressive voices can be heard.
VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAT IS A TOTAL CROCK OF SHIT!
To the frothing Democrats who spew their foul venom at people who actually pay attention to issues, instead of personalities, bug off. You don't have a right to my vote. As pointed out by so many, spend your vitriol attacking Republicans instead of Ralph, and maybe you'll have a better world.
As for the FDA, they have been compromised for years. Sad that when the American people fight for reforms, and win, the corporations find a way to destroy them. The FDA was set up to protect us, after grievous corporate crimes killed people. But there's no money in quality control, is there?
I remember in the 80s, when there was much hue and cry about the tylenol killer, who killed 7 people. At the same time, it was discovered that aspirin given to children made them more likely to develop Reyes Syndrome. Reagan delayed having warnings put on aspirin, because it would cut into drug companies profits. In between the time the link was discovered and the time the labels gave warnings, 47 children died of Reyes Syndrome.
Wouldn't you think the right-to-lifers would be upset about that? Guess not.
tailcap February 24th, 2008 4:25 pm
"Hey Rick I love your passion and energy for Ralph."
Thanks, I don't care if is name is goof-ball as long as he supports issues that helps Americans.
"anbody but the establish's choice."
That's all we've been getting for, hell I don't remember how long. It's time to change alright it's time to quit supporting new puppets.
Mike Huckabee, Republican Candidate, quoted today say's Ralph usually draws votes from the Democratic candidate, so "naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race." Shucks now, that is pretty clear.
What's the confusion?
It's a free country, and he can do what he wants.
And I guess being free, some of us are gonna feel free to question the effect's of and motivation behind his candidacy.
And UNIONGUY, Ralph busted up his own worker's attempts to organize in the late seventies too. Ten hour sweat-shops working the phones raising tax-free cash for Ralph at minimum wage.
He locked them out.
Go Ralph!
His candidacy does nothing but strengthen American Democracy.
I think the Obama Dems have the election wrapped up, because if the Republicans get re-elected it would either mean they stole the election by any means necessary, or Walmart has begun performing mandatory lobotomies. These would both be great cause for me to sew a raft out of pop cans and set sail for Cuba.
But the likelihood of Obama pulling a Lyndon B. Johnson and escalating the wars in the Middle East is extremely high, and if he does, let's hope Americans will be pissed off enough by God to get off the two-party system and give the greens a chance in 2012. Sure, that sounds crazy, right?
But If I told you a black guy would be running for prez even back in 2006 you would have said the same. It is possible.
rickster469
Hey Rick I love your passion and energy for Ralph. Think I found a new friend. I will support any real progressive. Be it Ralph, Cynthia Gravel, or anbody but the establish's choice. Now that Ralphs in at least we get a voice. Something other than high sounding platitudes.
I think it was LBJ who said something to the effect: it's better to be in the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in.
Nader is a national treasure, but he'll always be pissing in, no matter how much we wish otherwise (and yes, it may be true that the arrangement of the deckchairs is what's most important to the passengers. However, if the Titanic's sinking, deckchairs really won't matter will they.)
Obama may not be as progressive as we want, but at least we'll be in the tent pissing out. The sad thing is that not only will Nader help the Republicans, he'll do harm to his own causes he's worked so hard at all these years.
I will vote for whoever addresses: Population, Saving Habitat and Defending our U.S.A against Corporate Crooks.
So far MSM has eliminated all of them from the race.
We have fallen into this trap so many time over the decades that I think it's over... Just reading the above on CD... it's over.
Your right! Third parties don't have a chance.
So Obama has you all fired up? OMG! We wiil never learn.
Split the U.S. people will he, Nader? Ya gotta be kidding. It's because of Nader that Al Gore who knew the election was stolen that he gave up fighting for the office he legitimately won? C'mon! Your man Gore wimped out.
By the way Mcaimless, who was it that voted in the Congress over the past 7 years to give GW everything that he wanted? Who put a muzzle on John Conyers and the impeachment of these criminals in the White House? Who allowed "waterboarding" Mukasey to get confimred? Who keeps on passing funding for the illegal occupation in Iraq? Who was voted into the Congress to bring about the change that Obama now tells us he will do sometime after he is elected? The Democrats that's who.
Compare Obama's 2008 campaign with Richard Nixon's 1972 campaign that ran on ending the Vietnam War and you will find the same rhetoric with no plans. Nancy Pelosi has stated that ending the Iraq war will be off the table until 2009 because we will have a new Democratic president to contend with and break in. There you have it? There is your change for you. So, to Obama's "Yes, we can" I say "No, you won't".
As for Gore and his Nobel Price, have you ever checked out what Gore's carbon foot print looks like? The propane and electricity that his mansions consume in one month is huge. And what about all that jetting about? Sure. Al gore is "green". Sure he is. Look here --->
"Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.
"Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.
"But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.
"Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River."
Touche Al.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Mcaimless February 24th, 2008 3:06 pm
"It's thanks to Nader that we have a war criminal in office"
Your wrong. How did Nader cause that? I don't think Gore would have change and received the Nobel Peace prize if Nader hadn't showed him the errors of his ways.
Nader is the only one running that can bring about real change for the better in this country. The rest of you are only repeating the mistakes of the past.
It's thanks to Nader that we have a war criminal in office instead of a Nobel Peace Laureate. If you didn't figure that out 8 years ago then there's no hope for you (or this nation).
unionguy February 24th, 2008 2:48 pm
"While the entire rest of the American people are furious at the Bush regime belcause of their war policies, job theft, union busting and pension stealing their policies of taking everything from regular people and rewarding his super-wealthy buddies"
Which so far has been backed up by the likes of Hillary and Obama. You call that change.
jazef---THAT is your goal? Having the "Democrats yying their panties in knots" so that you can gain "another donation to the Nader campaign!"
That is exactly my point!! While the entire rest of the American people are furious at the Bush regime belcause of their war policies, job theft, union busting and pension stealing their policies of taking everything from regular people and rewarding his super-wealthy buddies, Nader and his pathetic group are more concerned about how they can split people up than in how they can help bring about the real changes that the American people are disparate for.
Nader COULD play a very positive role, helping unite the movement, strenthening the movement and helping win the people's demands. He does have that ability. The point is, that he cannot in any way play any positive role if his only role is to split the fight for change.
History will only remember him as a footnote. A patheltic, ego-driven little creature that tried to split the people's movement when the American people stood up for needed changes.
In our Unions, we do have a name for that activity. We call it SCABBING, and those who do it are SCABS!!
Nader is a Republican.
Pavroviandog, I like that lineup, except for Hill. as sec. defense. She must be kept away from anything of that nature, she is and always will be AIPAC's bitch. And Ralph, we love you really, but not now, please!
Ahuh. Ralph nader is "a literally pathetic, worthless little nothing", is he now? So pathetic, worthless and little that he has the Democrats tying their panties in knots. Good. Ching. Another donation to the Nader campaign. Thank you for the incentive.
Ralph Nader is a STINKING SCAB!!!
Absolutely NOTHING that he says has any resonance within the wider mass movement, within labor, minority communities, the women's movement or among regular working people. Nader's #1, top priority is the promotion of Ralph Nader!
What Nader actually stands for is the promotion of disunity!
Working people know that without unity, we cannot win. That is the central, #1 condition absolutely necessary to be able to defeat our main enemy, Bush and the ultra-right. We are under the most vicious attack working people have after been under in the history of our nation. Unions and all people's organizations are bldg huge organizations to fight to defeat the right, and to win natl health care, an end to the war, the right to organize, jobs programs for good, 'green,' union jobs, for protection of pensions and support for education rights. If Nader actually cared about the American people, he would be part of this huge coalition, fighting to win the goals he aspouses.
The Obama campaign has actually addressed every position that labor and progressive forces are demanding. He has adopted all of Edwards program, and actually puts forward, at this time, the strongest, most progressive program within the electoral arena. He is calling for a quick exit from Iraq, for a huge jobs program and massive funding for education and creation of 'green' jobs. He is taking a solid position on global warming and is a strong suppporter of worker's right to organize and join unions of their choice, as well a major supporter of pension rights. He supports universal helath care, and his position is getting closer to labor-supported HR 676.
More important than even his very progressive electoral program, is his call for "building from below." Not only does Obama understand that change comes from below, from the organized people's movement, but he is BUILDING THAT MOVEMENT! Obama came from the mass movement, working with our union (USW-Steelworkers) and many other progressive forces in Chicago, and he understands the power of the people organized. The massive enthusiastic outpouring of support for Obama is bringing out voters that have never voted before. Young voters, minority voters are voting in unbelievable, record numbers. As well, Obama is bldg support among white voters that were previously looked at as racist, from more politically backward areas. Across the board, the American people are angry, furious with the right-wing Bush regime, and are demanding substantial changes. The program of both Democratic candidates are reflecting the people's anger, but Obama's is an actual movement for progressive change. Almost all the unions are now on board with Obama, and are bldg those huge, fighting groups to build the fight AFTER the elections.
I, along with hundreds of other union folks, are working our asses off to reelect Dennis Kucinich, who is under a vicious, extremely well-funded attack by business/Zionist forces in Cleveland area. Dennis has put his political future on the line, fighting (successfully) to move the Democratic electoral to the left. He is absolutely right in the mainstream, middle of this huge coalition to defeat the ultra-right. (Dennis is a very good, old friend, and I KNOW this, and am not just speculating)!
Thus, at his time, we see the coming together, in a massive, huge, powerful movement, the labor movement, the peace forces, minority and youth voters, environmentalists, the Democratic Party (Obama WILL be the nominee), independent voters, even many former conservative/Republican voters and this huge, spontaneous movement for change that is sweeping up into it's ranks youth and millions who'd never voted or been involved in politics before. This presents the very real possiblity of using the elections to create the condidtions possible for a new "New Deal," except on a far, far wider and even more progressive basis.
And into this tremendous, historic revolutionary situation, what role does Nader play? Only that of a loney, ridiculous pipsqueak playing the role of an agent, a acab that, if he is successful, can only hope to slightly split the UNITY so badly needed to bring about this new, positive, progressive and revolutionary change.
What a literally pathelic, worthless little nothing he has become!!!
Interesting that in Nader's announcement of his candidacy while he has consistently spoken negatively of McCain and Hillary (and Bill) Clinton, his characterization of Obama is ... well, judge for yourself:
"Sen. Obama is a person of substance. He's also the first liberal evangelist in a long time. He's run a brilliant tactical campaign but his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself"
-- Ralph Nader, 2/24/08 (in current wire service stories)
Even Nader is acknowledging Obama is "a person of substance" with "knowledge" and "better instincts".
"On the other hand, you can use your energy more productively by joining any of the many groups working to let every American vote–unlike 2000 and 2004. Example: This spring or summer the Supreme Court will be likely to uphold a voter ID law in Indiana (similar laws in some other states)that will tend to depress the votes of people of color, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Work for (or support) groups that are NOW helping these voters to obtain the IDs that they need in order to vote, and then to get them rides to the polls if they need them. Just one suggestion out of many."
If you knew how patronizing that comes across, you'd understand why some people would love to meet you in person. I'd bet my house that most Greens and Nader supporters have done more activist work than you'll ever dream of.
"We will have real choices in November. There will be real differences between candidates. There will be high stakes for Americans and people around the world. Ralph Nader's candidacy will make it harder to bring us out of the nightmare of the last nearly eight years."
Real choices, huh? Shit.
"He has every right to run, and we have every right to let him wither on the vine, as we seek to put a better–if far from perfect–person into the White House."
Shit.
wiredwilly- I found your post the most interesting and then I'm looking at what I think is a second, briefing the first. I'm paying attenting. Alex Jones, Prison Planet also made a simular observation about Nader. I get the indication that you are a progressive, and I am not, I was a Libertarian, got "suckered" into Nader for three elections and progressed to rEVOLutionary, only to find Ron Paul, like Nader, "An Unreasonable Man". I would LOVE to see a Nader Ron Paul debate. I wish they were our "Duopoly". Ron Paul crashed the GOP, Nader wrote the book. I'd like to get the best from Ron Paul and Nader, sans the real power, that makes us what we are.
No one is questioning Ralph Nader's legal right to run. And in a rational political system--one stripped of the electoral college and the unlimited power of money to become speech--we would also hail as many people as choose to take their time and use their energy to become a candidate for president.
Meanwhile, we fragment the progressive vote at out peril. No, it serves no purpose to tag Nader with invective. But it is critical to say what Nader is doing: Using his celebrity to once again threaten to leave in power people who will do measurable and palpable harm to the U.S. and to many millions around the world who will suffer as well and have no power to participate in our wounded politics.
No, we will not be likely to elect a president completely unbeholden to "the establishment" until we make marked changes in how the democracy is run. You have an unfettered right to ignore elections until your fantasy candidate is nominated. You can talk smugly about candidates who are "useful tool to establish a more popular base of support for the geopolitical interests of the American ruling class." Keep supporting Ralph Nader and you will surely help to keep in power the very ruling class folks you rail on about.
On the other hand, you can use your energy more productively by joining any of the many groups working to let every American vote--unlike 2000 and 2004. Example: This spring or summer the Supreme Court will be likely to uphold a voter ID law in Indiana (similar laws in some other states)that will tend to depress the votes of people of color, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Work for (or support) groups that are NOW helping these voters to obtain the IDs that they need in order to vote, and then to get them rides to the polls if they need them. Just one suggestion out of many.
We will have real choices in November. There will be real differences between candidates. There will be high stakes for Americans and people around the world. Ralph Nader's candidacy will make it harder to bring us out of the nightmare of the last nearly eight years.
He has every right to run, and we have every right to let him wither on the vine, as we seek to put a better--if far from perfect--person into the White House.
Want to know what Nader supports? Here's a list. http://www.votenader.org/issues/
A small list to be sure but issues we support.
Don't blame Nader if Dems lose the election. It'll be the Dem's fault for refusing to address the significant points Nader addresses, as well as Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards.
As long as Obama and Hillary refuse to address the concerns of the masses, they simply won't get the votes . . .
Obama is backed by the reactionary, cold-warrior, Zigniew Brzezinski. one of the co-founders of the notorious Tri-Lateral Commission. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082402127.html Brzezinski is the architect of what led to the horrendous events going on in Palestine today. Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor's contribution to the debacle in Afghanistan was the successful plan that fostered an international movement to spread Islamic fanaticism into the Muslim Central Asian Soviet republics to destabilize the Soviet Union. It worked and it led to the current "blowback." We are now paying the price. Nader talks about resolving the Israeli-Palestine problem and how to go about it. Obama and Hillary avoid it. My father shed blood in WWII in Trans-Jordan (Palestine). He said world peace would never come until this issue is resolved. Obama and Hillary have no solutions, whatsover. They are the puppets and the puppeteers are the rich ruling elite that give us the superfluous horse-race so that the serious issues are never addressed. Those issues are "boring" to many. Too bad. Ralph Nader addresses them, however. Good. Perhaps, Democratic Party operatives and puppets should look up and see the strings attached upwards to their rich ruling masters and cut them once and for all. Otherwise, nothing will ever change, no matter how much they yell, "Yes, we can".
PrestonDigitator February 24th, 2008 12:25 pm
"Not surprised to see you rear your intervening head now Ralph, just shows the level of desperation coming out of the GOP these days"
Actually if DK was winning the race I don't think Nader would be running for president. He may not have run if Edwards was winning. Seeing as how the only ones running in the two party parallel systems are conservatives someone in the progressive camp has to step up.
When democrats start supporting people who care for the average American then the Democratic Party will start getting the support of all the people. Otherwise it will continue to be monkey hear the MSM, monkey follow the MSM.
dancingfool February 24th, 2008 12:02 pm
"No,Ralph,your number one priority is to get Republicans elected. "
No he going to push the progressive ideas that we all support.
"I can't forgive you ,nor the narcisistic,self righteous self styled, "progressives",who support you."
I can't forgive the spineless democrats that buy into the corporate control news medias spin and treat the elections like they're a popularity contest. You can continue voting for conservatives if you want, but don't cry foul at me.
"Go to Hell!"
Thanks to the democratic backing of the republicans we're all close to being in hell.
Democrats:
The candidates have been vetted. Any candidate that stands a chance is a candidate that in no way presents even the most timid threat to the powers that be. If they represented a threat they would have met the same fate as Ralph Nader, Edwards, Gravel and even Ron Paul. Hillary and Obama are pro-status quo, pro-big business and pro-war sell outs. I don't have any problem with you Democrats voting for either Obullarys. So don't complain if we don't. Democrats hate our democratic right to vote for whoever we want but you Democrats need to learn to respect it. And you call yourselves Democrats?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/obam-f21.shtml
Obama has received the backing of leading sections of the corporate and political establishment because he is seen as a useful tool to establish a more popular base of support for the geopolitical interests of the American ruling class.
Stiv -
What Ralph Nader left behind was the vote tally from the State of Florida in 2000, which was displayed once again on Meet the Press this morning. It does not show the viability of a Nader presidential campaign and it does not establish a third party movement. It does show the other parties, primarily the Dems, the number of votes they can not count on if they do not address the issues of people like Nader and the Greens. The effect of that is evident today in the fact that both Clinton and Obama are giving serious lip service to the problems of special interest lobbyists, the war and the environment. They want those votes back, and that is the extent of our power to date. Votes for the Green Party are also votes they can not count on, so that is a good thing and contributes to "our" agenda. We don't need to quibble at this early date over which rag tag band of progressives is going to be the core around which a permanent third party forms. Right now we just need to buy out of the two party system. Just the fact that so many people changed their affiliation to Independent after 2004 practically sent the establishment into cardiac arrest. We don't yet have a place to go to. But we do have a dead-end system to exit from, and we should do that.
Jozef--
Nicely done and well said! When you see JP Morgan-Chase, Goldman-Sachs, Citigroup, and the rest of the usual suspects chip in millions of dollars for campaign contributions you know where the loyalties of leading candidates lie.
Not surprised to see you rear your intervening head now Ralph, just shows the level of desperation coming out of the GOP these days..... only one problem....been there, done that.... In case you haven't noticed dinasaurs are extinct, just ask John McCain. Fact is, your spot light went "that-a-way ->" about 12 hears ago.
Ralph took money from Republicans? Well. Of course, he did. Do Obama/Hillary not take money from Republicans? Of course they do, and from giant large Republican entities called: CORPORATIONS! See below. Democrats once again want it both ways for them purity is only for the other guy, not their candidate.
BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Contributors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638
Goldman Sachs $421,763
Ubs Ag $296,670
Lehman Brothers $250,630
National Amusements Inc $245,843
JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848
Sidley Austin LLP $226,491
Citigroup Inc $221,578
Exelon Corp $221,517
Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420
Jones Day $181,996
Harvard University $172,324
Citadel Investment Group$171,798
Time Warner $155,383
Morgan Stanley $155,196
Google Inc $152,802
University of Cal. $143,029
Jenner & Block $136,565
Kirkland & Ellis $134,738
Wilmerhale Llp $119,245
Credit Suisse Group $118,250
HILLARY CLINTON (D)
Top Contributors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
DLA Piper $471,750
Goldman Sachs $413,361
Morgan Stanley $362,700
Citigroup Inc $350,895
Lehman Brothers $241,870
JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880
EMILY's List $213,266
National Amusements Inc $210,010
Kirkland & Ellis $179,676
Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800
Skadden, Arps et al $167,796
Merrill Lynch $165,042
Cablevision Systems $145,313
Time Warner $144,977
Microsoft Corp $143,459
Bear Stearns $141,835
Latham & Watkins $138,598
Patton Boggs $137,200
Ernst & Young $126,865
PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939
Peace Czar February 24th, 2008 11:56 am
"You think trolls apologize that easily?"
No, but I'm not always right either. If I make a mistake, I won't take it as a slap on the face, if you point it out to me.
No,Ralph,your number one priority is to get Republicans elected. I can't forgive you ,nor the narcisistic,self righteous self styled, "progressives",who support you. Go to Hell!
I'm voting for Nader. Comparing his segment of Meet the Press, 15 minutes stuffed with enough facts and figures and cogent arguments to make your head explode, to the remainder of the program devoted to the vacuous content of the other three campaigns, did it for me. Honest to god, it was nearly scary watching the Blue Pill Media close in after Nader, pretending that clever insults and speech copying and sexual indiscretions and dopey slogans and sucking up to superdelegates are the substance of this election. This stuff is aimed at children.
The clincher was Ralph's assertion that if the democrats can't win this election by a decisive landslide they need to fold their tents and disappear. I agree. Let's give moderate democrats and disillusioned conservatives a chance to replace George Bush with something somewhat better. I'm not a moderate democrat myself. I'm a progressive. A year after Obama wins the election, when all of you two-party aficionados are bitching because you still can't get a progressive agenda out of your government, I'll be able to say I voted for it and you didn't.
The "spoiler" argument is an argument from weakness and fear. It's the electorate, not the progressive community, that needs to wake up to the misery the GOP has inflicted on them. It is the soporific majority, not us, which needs to shift to the left and put the democrats back in power. I believe it should happen and will happen. But that move alone will not pull the country from the grip of corporate lobbyists and secretive, militant kleptocrats unless a highly visible, progressive block of voters remains unsatisfied and demonstrates that our votes can not be bought with empty prattle and dog kibbles.
I WANT to beleive Mr. Nader, I really do. I'd love to see a Nader/Gravel leadership. I WANT to beleive that a 3rd party can rise up out of the mess this country is in and save us all, change things for the better.
And I had begun (by process of elimination) to beleive that Obama could give it a good try. I think MANY people in the US are really excited about him, and I think he has a chance of winning against McCain, or other Bush cronies.
BUT
I think that running as a 3rd party can ONLY have ONE outcome, and it makes me wonder WHY Nader is running and WHO is backing him.
The outcome?
That the votes will be close between dems and reps. I think that there people are tired of republican b.s. but there are still a lot of people in this country who won't vote for a black man. So I think it will be close, and since Nader will be taking away from the dem side of the ticket, his running will CAUSE the republican candidate to win, and we'll have 8 more years of this craziness!
And THAT makes me wonder who's financing him...
rickster469:
You think trolls apologize that easily?
----
Speaking of that, you just can watch the haters climb out of the woodwork.
If someone went through this thread, the number of illogical & naysayers grows by leaps and bounds. Typically it's just the small handful of clowns, but what a magnet a Nader candidacy is.
At least by some point this election season they'll all have to recognize the rather inconvenient truth that Nader wasn't responsible for Gore's truth. Might actually drag you all up to a level of maturity to review the real factors in play.
Know that feeling of "empowerment" some* shit-brained Dems on this thread have? It's inversely related to any lingering enlightenment. Power over substance. Popularity before principles. What's left? Oh right, power and popularity that stand for nothing.
*note that I said "some." Contain your hissy-fits.
"We do need a healthy, growing Green Party. More members, more money, more volunteers. Nader's bid this time is outside of that structure and creating nothing. No party structure, NOTHING. That's what will be left after his campaign."
I couldn't agree more, Stiv.
Nader is not building any party, though, I still defend his right to run for any damn thing he wants to. He has issues, ideas, points he wants to make, and godspeed to him. I see no point in voting for him, so I won't.
As far as the Green Party goes - I wish them well. While I'm no longer a Green, I know that by and large their platform is right and necessary - so, I personally try to live them. That the Democrats have consistently pissed on these progressive values for the last 30 years does everyone a disservice.
"I hope your candidacy will inform the public, force candidates to address Green issues and finally help Obama get the presidency."
I hope Obama will even try to address Green/green issues. As part of a much larger corporate machine, I'm not holding my breath. I'll work to try to make it happen, but I won't expect it to.
ezeflyer February 24th, 2008 11:41 am
"I realize the Democrats are full of conservative sellouts so I will vote a mixed ballot with Greens when they have a good chance of winning or when the Dem candidate leads by a safe margin, and with progressive Dems when their candidacy is threatened by Repubs."
That is a cop out, an excuse for losing. Vote for the person who best represents the needs of the people. That's the only way were ever going to take back this country.
When they have a good chance of winning my behind, you just want to be on the winners side.
wouldn't it be nice if all the Dems and Dem consultants would take all the time, energy and money they pour into despising Ralph Nader and put it toward fighting corporate malfeasance and domination of our economy?
I"m not going to hold my breath.
By the way, I'm a lifelong Dem.
Dear Ralph Nader:
I am very glad you have decided to run. This will give you a bully pulpit to inform the people about the things that really matter which no other candidate dares talk about. You would certainly make the best president by far. And you will force the other candidates to address these issues.
I would like to see you really tie into the Republican mafia as only you can, but leave Obama alone as he is the only hope for us to get out from under Republican jackboots. We really can't take this Republican nightmare much longer.
After you have campaigned against the fascist hordes and just prior to the presidential elections, I would like to see you drop out of the race and back Obama.
I realize the Democrats are full of conservative sellouts so I will vote a mixed ballot with Greens when they have a good chance of winning or when the Dem candidate leads by a safe margin, and with progressive Dems when their candidacy is threatened by Repubs.
It is frustrating that a well informed person can have his or her vote nullified by a vote from an ignorant conservative clod or stolen by fascists, but that is democracy and it's vulnerability. Democratic persons trust that all the people, given all the information, will make the right choices.
I hope your candidacy will inform the public, force candidates to address Green issues and finally help Obama get the presidency.
jasoncocobolo February 24th, 2008 11:28 am
"What happened? Nader got selfish, used the green party and destroyed their credibility to a nation at large."
I'd like to hear how he did that. Did I miss something? Can't seem to remember ever reading anything that would make me believe that. Care to post some link's.
Sorry iammyself sometimes I get confused on who's saying What to whom.
tailcap: Right, we do need to unite, and that is and always be the problem with a viable third party. There were golden opportunities in 2000 with Nader and more locally, 2002 with Tim Penny. Both for the Greens and the Indepent Party, they had nationally recognized names in Nader and Jesse Ventura. Both could have gotten off the ground and made a viable third choice, which would have kept the other two honest. What happened? Nader got selfish, used the green party and destroyed their credibility to a nation at large. For the independents, Ventura refused to back Tim Penny, refused to fund raise, Penny ran out of money and lost his shot at showing that the circus that was Jesse Ventura was more than that. Penny would have made a great leader of MN and given the indepedent party legitimacy. It didnt happen and we lost years of grass roots party building and seemed to start from scratch.
iammyself February 24th, 2008 11:15 am
"Hello kc, you stated Ralph would not knowingly take money from the GOP: that is incorrect,"
You are absolutely incorrect. He stated on Meet the Press this morning that he would take personal contributions from any individual regardless of party affiliation only. That's a big difference from accepting money from the GOP, big business or lobbyists.
Stiv: Great points and is exactly how I feel. Nader as an independent hurts more than he helps.
tailcap February 24th, 2008 10:53 am
"I think he just uses them to get on the ballot."
I could be wrong because I can't seem to locate any information on it, but I think he is running as an independent. Green party won't do me any good anyway. There not recognized by the state I live in.
voxclamantis wrote:
"Ralph doesn't expect to become president. He wants to create a power structure that represents the people, and this is a longer term project than our perennial quick fix mentality seems capable of grasping."
Well, I wish this were true. How many times has he run? What is left behind? Practically nothing.
This time he has completely blown off the Green Party process. Previous runs were supposedly about building the Green Party and he was supposedly one of many possible candidates this year, including Cynthia McKinney. What's up with that? The previous efforts have been shockingly poor at 'building' the Green Party.
We do need a healthy, growing Green Party. More members, more money, more volunteers. Nader's bid this time is outside of that structure and creating nothing. No party structure, NOTHING. That's what will be left after his campaign.
McKinney is raising issues that Nader won't. I'm upset that he pretended to be in the running for the Green Party candidacy and then blew them off. This is going to be bad for the Green Party and it makes no sense to me. Obviously there are a bunch of people on this forum who are Nader supporters, but I'm betting you never worked for previous campaigns as I have. This is really a disaster and very annoying. I will NOT be supporting Nader in this dead-end effort.
The Green Party convention is in Chicago: Thursday, July 10th to Sunday, July 13th.
http://www.gp.org/index.php
"Hello kc, you stated Ralph would not knowingly take money from the GOP: that is incorrect, if it is your pleasure, Google 'nader campaign contributions republican'"
Did that, Mike. Here are some snippets from the top search results. *Please pay special attention to the last snippet.* Funny how things can be slanted a particular way depending on how we want to see them, huh?:
From the NY Times: "With the apparent assistance of the state Republican Party, Ralph Nader appears likely to secure a spot on the Michigan presidential ballot. But Democrats are calling for him to withdraw and are threatening to file a complaint against the Republicans, charging that they contributed illegally to the Nader campaign."
From the SF Chronicle: "Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader -- still not on the ballot in a single state -- has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party, an analysis of federal records show."
From Salon.com: "According to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington -- whose name sounds as if Nader could once have been its founder -- the Nader presidential campaign received illicit assistance for its petition drive in Oregon last weekend from two local conservative organizations, which were "encouraged" by President Bush's campaign committee."
And finally, this from CounterPunch:
"October 19, 2004
Who's Really in Bed with Republican Funders?
Republican Contributions: $10.7 Million for Kerry vs. $111,700 for Nader
By CounterPunch Wire
Washington, D.C.
Today, the Independent presidential campaign of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo released the preliminary findings of research conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics. The findings demonstrate that Senator John Kerry has thousands of contributors who have supported the Republican Party. Kerry has more than ten million dollars donated by Republican donors.
The anti-Nader Democrats have spread their big lie to discredit Nader and silence his anti-war and progressive message that Kerry could not rebut. The anti-Naderites hired Stanley Greenberg to conduct surveys and focus groups to determine how best to smear Nader. They found that falsely claiming Nader was funded and controlled by Republicans was the most effective line they could use  a line that can't pass the laugh test when compared to the facts. They announced their findings at the Democratic Convention and then spread the lie through the Naderfactor.com and the United Progressives for Victory.
But the reality was only 700 Republican contributions (no individuals, but individual contributions) had given donations to the Nader campaign and most of the contributors were people Nader had worked with on justice issues in the past. Even among these 700 the Democrats received more money than Nader-Camejo -- $111,700 to $146,000. But, the Democrats continue to use the Big Lie  despite the facts."
Your number one priority should be to voluntarily submit yourself for Rehab, I think there is room where Brittany Spears left a vacancy. If you thought you were helping me and the nation when you helped Bush get elected you definitely are nuts.
If you think you are helping me now please enter yourself in the nearest psychiatric ward immediately you are crazier than the lunatic you will be helping madman McCrazy.
If you come to your senses soon and support the greenest most liberal candidate in the race, including you, then disregard this post.
Nader is NOT interested in being President. Nader sees the dialog in the primary debates are bullshit as will be the "debates" between the final candidates so he wants to shape the debate, take it away from "who's the most patriotic" to real issues.
tumbleweed. You're the ignorant one. Have you not read about US history and seen that the major positive changes in it have come from 3rd parties and their influence, from candidates that had NO hope of winning? Like Eugene Debs, from whence came big gains in getting workers rights, social security, etc. So, go ahead, call Nader folk "ignorant" from the comfort of your own ignorance and watch how that persuasive tactic turns more and more people away from the Democrats! And oh, why are you so anti-democratic? Anytime, anyone votes for the candidate of their choice they are not throwing away their vote. How dare you decide what my vote is? Who the hell are you? Wait. I know. You and your party are the ones that through their arrogance make it necessary for someone like Nader to run. Thank you, by the way.
tailcap February 24th, 2008 10:24 am
"If we all fall for the logic that we shouldn't vote for third parties because they can't win we self-fulfill our own prophecy……….Don't be scared by those crying that that now is not the time. That's what they will always say. The sky will forever be falling. They said that last time and they'll say it next time."
They have been saying it for years and years, and will continue to do so as long as we allow it. This is something that was started by the powerful corporate news media and people bought into it. Quit buying into the trash coming from the MSM. If you want to see a change in this country abandon the Republican and the Democratic Party. Other wise shut up and sleep in the bed you've made. Hope doesn't get it done.
Go, Nader, Go.
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
jasoncocobolo February 24th, 2008 9:38 am
You made some good points. It bothers me that Nader hasn't built up the Greens. I'm not really sure he is even a member. I think he just uses them to get on the ballot. Ralph has done a great service to this country in many ways but you made valid points.
If not with Ralph then with Cynthia McKinney or someone else. We need to break with the two party duopoly regardless of who is at the top of the ticket. There are other parties out there. If only we all could unite.
tumbleweed February 24th, 2008 10:21 am
"What is wrong with you people here????? Haven't you idiots figured out by now Ralph Nader can't win!!! That all you are doing is throwing your vote away!...........All I can do is shake my head at the ignorance that passes for intelligence!
While your running down the same road, maybe at a slower pace but still the same road.
babka February 24th, 2008 9:58 am
"WHY WAS RALPH NADER AT THE CELEBRATION OF GWB'S VICTORY? SEATED AT THE SAME TABLE AS THE OVERLY MADE-UP LADY WHO STOPPED THE VOTE IN FLORIDA?"
Got a link. I've already done a quick search and couldn't find any reference to it. Seeing how you shouted it out and didn't supply a link to information about it, I doubt you. Plus if that was true don't you think it would have been plastered all over the WORLD news by now? I can shout to but only for emphasis. Prove me wrong and I will apologize.
I have never, in my 55 years of life, seen a better candidate for President of the US than this man.
If we all fall for the logic that we shouldn't vote for third parties because they can't win we self-fulfill our own prophecy. It's a circular vicious cycle. They can't win because we don't vote for them. We don't vote for them because we don't think they can win. They won't win at first silly. It's a process. It will take time.
We need to break away from our fears because the Democrats are just Republicans in drag. Bush was able to basically railroad congress on everything he wanted to accomplish because he could always count on enough Democratic votes to implement his agenda.
The Democrats are a disgrace. They can't even impeach Bush after he has basically admitted he broke the law when he spied on US citizens and tortured prisoners. Can you imagine what the Republicans would have done to Bill Clinton if he'd had done that instead of hosing a cute young intern? They would have crucified him on the spot. The Democrats are beyond being disgraced. They are an utterly pathetic, weak, cowardly and repugnant party that works hand in glove with the Republicans. They are beyond contempt. They are like stress sacks. Useless.
Little by little we need to build a new party. A party that represents the interests of people not corporate power. The Democrats can't do this because they represent the same interests Republicans do. The power brokers are no fools, they fund both parties and in turn both parties are beholden to their masters.
Don't be scared by those crying that that now is not the time. That's what they will always say. The sky will forever be falling. They said that last time and they'll say it next time. Never will be the time to break with the Dims for them. Hopeless bunch. They are like frogs that slowly get cooked because they are too stupid to jump out of the pot as the heat gets slowly turned up. They stay in the pot until they get cooked. Dump the Dims! Vote 3rd party! When enough of us do we can stand, we can fight and we can force change! NEVER SURRENDER!
What is wrong with you people here????? Haven't you idiots figured out by now Ralph Nader can't win!!! That all you are doing is throwing your vote away! All you can do is put another neocon Republican into office! To destroy what's left of our country! But, still you insist on following Nader over the cliff. It's unbelievable how some people never learn! All I can do is shake my head at the ignorance that passes for intelligence!