Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhile the presidential campaigns of John McCain and Barack Obama have stepped gingerly around the financial crisis and the question of government intervention, third party candidates Bob Barr and Ralph Nader have shown no such compunction.
Instead they have embraced the market meltdown, viewing it as a rare opportunity to highlight bold economic positions and, perhaps as important, claim credit for sounding the early warning alarms.
"We've been hammering it," said Shane Cory, Bob Barr's deputy campaign manager. "When this first came about with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Bob was explaining, 'when we bail out Fannie and Freddie, expect more to come.'"
Barr, the former Republican congressman from Georgia who is running as a Libertarian, now sends out press releases lambasting the administration for indulging in corporate welfare, festooned with headlines such as "I told you so."
"This administration, supposedly devoted to free markets and fiscal responsibility, has bailed out the housing industry, the quasi-government mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the investment house Bear Stearns, and a leading insurer," read a Sept. 17 statement. "And how will we pay for this ever-rising bill for corporate welfare?"
Barr boasts that he was a few weeks ahead of the curve, pointing to an August 15 press release warning that the bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bear Stearns would lead to more irresponsible behavior and more bailouts in the future.
"The mere possibility of a bailout will discourage companies and markets from adjusting in the future," said the release.
The Nader campaign claims the independent candidate's prescience in predicting the current meltdown dates back more than a decade.
"Ralph has almost prophetically predicted over the last 15 years of deregulation what the effects might be," said Toby Heaps, a Nader spokesperson. "When Clinton removed the need for banks to pay annually into the FDIC [Nader] predicted the FDIC might be short on cash and taxpayers would need to bail it out."
Nader, a longtime consumer advocate who ran for president in 2000 and 2004, also predicted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were headed for a crisis in his 2000 campaign.
He has seized the opportunity this week to take credit for being ahead of the curve and also to contrast his proposals with McCain and Obama. Nader has issued a detailed 10-point plan with short and long-term proposals ranging from imposing additional conditions on bailout recipients to making the Federal Reserve a Cabinet position that is accountable to Congress.
In an interview with Politico last week, Nader emphasized many of the same issues, calling the Federal Reserve "a government within government" that is unaccountable to the public or to democratic institutions. He also said that the current round of bailouts were worse than the Chrysler Corp. rescue of 1979 because it does not impose sufficient conditions on the companies or benefits to the government.
"[Nader]'s not unequivocally opposed to bailouts but he's opposed to those without reciprocity," explained Heaps. "For Chrysler, the government received stock warrants, so when the company recovered government made a $400 million profit. What happens today is people bow to what big business asks for without conditions whatsoever. He's opposed to unconditional bailouts like this one."
Like Nader, Barr also diverges from the cautious positions expressed by McCain and Obama. There is no hedging whatsoever: He opposes any bailout or additional regulation.
"Barr supports letting the free market run its course," said Cory.
Cory says that the campaign is seeing increased attention in Barr as a result.
"We're getting more people signing up for the email list, donations are up, our press releases are being carried more widely," said Cory. And although major media appearances remain somewhat elusive, there has been a notable uptick.
The Nader campaign reports it hasn't been as fortunate.
"I have never in my life seen someone so in the sweet spot of a story and get so little coverage," complained Heaps. "We've had some articles in small papers but nothing in the major media except a hit on FOX."
The Nader experience stands in stark contrast to the surge in media interest in longshot former Republican presidential contender Ron Paul, who ran in the GOP primary on a platform that strongly opposed deficit spending, called for abolishing the Federal Reserve, and issued dire predictions about the future of the U.S. economy.
Though he is no longer running for president, the crisis has sparked an unaccustomed media boomlet for Paul, who has made recent television appearances on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and Fox Business.
Paul, like Nader, claims that recent events prove the correctness of his economic philosophy. "He thinks this is a long term crises that has been unwinding since 1971," said Jesse Benton, a Paul spokesperson.
Paul shares Barr and Nader's view that the government's response has been inappropriate.
"[The bailouts] prop up a bad system," said Paul on MSNBC Thursday afternoon. "All they've tried to do is patch up a system that is unworkable."
44 Comments so far
Show All"Barr boasts that he was a few weeks ahead of the curve, pointing to an August 15"
Oooh... a few weeks ahead... Where as people like Mike Whitney and Paul Craig Roberts have been talking about this for well over a year now...
A few points on Nader's behalf:
Nader's work in holding auto makers and regulatory agencies accountable in the 1960s and 1970s saved hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of American lives. He has inspired unknown numbers of activists here and around the world who have gone on to save other people's lives.
Reagan began the large scale infiltration of corporatist foxes into the Departmental and regulatory agencies with oversight responsibilities. Nader has fought increasingly uphill, expensive and protracted battles ever since. Mass belated drug recalls, class action lawsuits that drag on for years, and food poisonings are now so common (like Bush's invasions and presidential directives to subvert, surveill and attack) that people hardly even notice them anymore.
The fact is we live in a capitalist country and it takes capital to fight capitalism's worst anti-regulatory tendencies. Nader owns stock in a some dubious companies for two main reasons: (1) So some dividend money he receives can be used for his work and for activist groups he supports, and (2) so he can have the right to attend shareholders' meetings and voice his complaints directly against management and the corporate boards without being escorted out by security guards.
He is the closest thing to a living Cicero we have had in the last 40 years, only he never had the chance to wield the sort of power Cicero briefly did. Rome, at the time Cicero became a Consul, was still enough of a Republic to allow a principled man into high power. By the time Nader first tried to become a presidential candidate, Amurka was already past that point. His principled stand against the Democratic DLC establishment and Big Media's willingness to preemptively dismiss Nader (along with Kucinich) and deny them mass media access has reduced Nader to admitting that his main reason for persisting in the presidential races is to re-claim the right of debate for Third Party candidates. If, during the present urgent national crises, Amurkans can't even be bothered enough to call their "representatives" in Congress to demand that the FEC open the "presidential debates" to third Parties, how can they be expected to be intelligent enough to elect an informed, principled candidate like Nader?
Maybe when we reach 27% to 40% real unemployment some of them MIGHT get a clue. I'm not holding my breath. I'm preparing for the economic and political worst and I advise you all to do the same.
Big Media and all the pols sucking on the Wall Street tit are treating this like it's simply a meltdown of the "financial industry" without real consequences to the rest of us. What we are seeing is the distant plume of a macroeconomic Krakatoa before the tidal waves. The last Great Depression lasted roughly 18 years. Some economists are predicting that what is looming up on us now will last even longer.
How can you call yourself a liberal or progressive and vote for Obama, whose economic advisers are former managers of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? How blind can you be?
Not to mention at least 20 other reasons, his funding of the war, his FISA bill corrupt vote, his support of Wall Street, his support of NAFTA, his support of AIPAC, his homophobia, etc.?
Choosing Jeffrey Dahmer over Ted Bundy because he killed fewer people isn't even Lesser Evilist, it's incredibly idiotic.
I've simply been amazed and appalled by all the bullying Obama supporters have been doing all over the net. They keep on insisting that I must agree to their pragmatism and vote for their candidate. I say vote for whomever you choose. I can explain why I am voting the way I am: Obama does not measure up for me because I disagree with him completely on foreign policy, mostly on economic policy, somewhat on domestic policy. He's not for single payer health care and he is for "faith based" initiatives. I prefer McKinney and Nader because I agree with their platforms almost completely. I also am tired of all this bullying in regards to "if you live in a swing state, then you must help us defeat John McCain". Voters can vote pragmatically if they want to, but I don't have to!
If people measured all candidates against the same yardstick, they would see how much higher Nader measures up and where the others stand (far below Nader on issues related to corporate corruption, universal health care, military based foreign policy (aka imperialism) and the list goes on.
The argument that it is a matter of 'strategic' voting to support Obama (cause he's better than McCain), is contradicted by history which has shown that government will never move towards a more compassionate position by constantly compromising core values and voting for the lesser of two evils.
For real change to occur, the general public will have to realize that the mainstream corporate parties will always act first and foremost to protect corporate interests, even at the expense of the general public. Until that happens, and as long as people will continue to vote for the mainstream corporate parties, we will not see the necessary changes that will bring more peace and justice to our planet.
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress,” declared Frederick Douglass in 1857, in response to those who suggested that the great abolitionist was pushing too hard for an end to human bondage. “Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
Bob Barr (gag)
Remy Germain "I'm making a choice to vote for Obama because he is the better choice".
Why? What are your reasons? He's better because he's better. Please, list the policy differences that make him better than McCain.
I'll start,
1) A tax policy that will raises taxes on the richest 1% instead of cutting them (although Biden defended the plan by saying they would still pay less taxes than they did under Reagan).
2) Pro-choice.
3) Opposition to privatizing SS.
4) Opposition to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (although he opposes gay marriage).
5) A willingness to conduct diplomacy with countries deemed "enemies".
6) Slightly different health insurance policies (both oppose socialized medicine).
7) He opposed the Surge while continuing to fund it (though he now claims "I've already said, it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams").
8) Strikes on Pakistan. While Obama supports them, in the aftermath of Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination (in December 2007) McCain appeared to rule out the option of US forces entering Pakistan, saying that it was not an appropriate time to "threaten" Pakistan. He also said "I'm not going to go there. And here's why, because Pakistan is a sovereign nation."
9) He voted against Military Commissions Act of 2006.
10) He opposes school vouchers.
That's not enough for me. I won't vote for him. But I'm trying to be fair. Would anyone care to expand their differences?
Can anyone describe their differences on Iraq and Afghanistan (apart from the surge in Iraq)? Or the Patriot Act (he called for the repeal of it in 2003 before he was a Senator and then voted for it in 2006)? Bush's spying program? Zionism? Plan Columbia? Support for the first and second Congo War? Support for Georgia's attack on South Ossetia? Support for the war in The "War on Terror? Wall Street bailouts? Etc...
Point #3- Actually, Obama was waffling on Social Security before he was for defending it, as pointed out here by the American Enterprise Institute.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27704/pub_detail.asp
FOUL! The AEI is an Exxon Mobil funded neoCON 'thinktank' with close ties to the Bush disadministration and Dick Cheney.
William Kristol has been the head of it and may still be.
FOUL! To have the AEI cited on CD as a viable source for anything.
Question? Do you self-identify as a NeoCONservative, or do you just subscribe to AEI ideology and diatribes?
Whoh, Thanks. You confirm what I sense in all the Obama Hating. Republicans.
You might not want to cite the AEI, THAT, is fronting yourself off.
Obama and McCain need to face the four candidates shut out by the Commission on Presidential Debates. But, they won't. They'll hide behind the skirts of Goldman Sachs, et.al. Real heroes.
The Dem Party motivates its accolytes with fear. But their leaders are cowards. Cowardice on impeachment, cowardice on war, cowardice on healthcare, cowardice on corporate criminals...(note the trend). The country can't withstand cowardice parading as "change."
Where is truth in this campaign?
Nader has ballot access on all but the still-primitive state of Oklahoma. He will be on your ballot. Goldman Sachs and the Dem mafia didn't stop him.
Toby Heaps asks why Nader's prophetic comments about Clinton's capitulation to the banks, leaving taxpayers with the tab, is ignored by the corporate media. Of course, they ignore Nader. The whole system is scared shitless of Nader's truth. He is frozen out.
And the cretins call him a hypocrite.
We know with 100% probability that the Republican or the Democrat's candidate this year shall become the president of the US of A on January 20th at noon in 2009.
I'm making a choice to vote for Obama because he is the better choice and after this election and he is elected I will be working to make sure that we demand that he do, not what he said he would do, but rather what we need him to do. That is my yes we can message. We need to realize that the power to change our world is in our hands if we get out into the streets with our friends, families, and neighbors and demand that we are heard and satisfied.
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - June Jordan
Have you been out on the streets? Would you please tell us what issue(s) you've taken the time and trouble to fight for - on the streets? What kind of success did you have?
Nader, Barr & Paul: 'Told You So'
So what?
It seems that the game of future telling does little to change our fate. It is the old joke about how the stock market has predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions.
Nader, Barr & Paul are not going to be elected, period. We know with 100% probability that the Republican or the Democrat's candidate this year shall become the president of the US of A on January 20th at noon in 2009.
Enough is enough. Smart talk and dreamy rhetoric will keep us writing here but will change nothing if we do not organize our neighbors to get out and demand universal health care, education, middle class wages for all workers, and time to spend with our families, friends and neighbors enjoying the fruits of our labor.
I'm making a choice to vote for Obama because he is the better choice and after this election and he is elected I will be working to make sure that we demand that he do, not what he said he would do, but rather what we need him to do. That is my yes we can message. We need to realize that the power to change our world is in our hands if we get out into the streets with our friends, families, and neighbors and demand that we are heard and satisfied.
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - June Jordan
I think to wait to elect and then demand is the equivalent of throwing your vote away. What makes you think Obama is going to support your issues when he currently does not. It's ridiculous. He's running on what he's running on. And that's what you can expect will be his legacy - Don't just hear the word change and become all starry-eyed. A candidate has to EARN your vote before you cast it. If you want real change don't vote for someone who uses the word over and over again until it's lost all meaning. Earning your vote means voting for someone who has worked their entire lives for change. I currently believe the only candidate who is qualified is Ralph Nader. He's the only one we can trust to do the right thing once elected. But we have to get rid of the mindset that a candidate doesn't need to earn your vote in order to cast it for them. I.E. Democrats always vote for Democrats and Republicans do the same. It's time the American people really take A CLOSE LOOK at what the 3rd party candidates are proposing and throw their collective weight behind them. Our country needs them more than ever!
You say So What? that Nader predicted the Wall Street Crisis. He did everything he could to warn congress. They didn't WANT to listen. That's the only reason why it didn't do any good. But Nader still did the right thing. If they had've listend to him we wouldn't be in this mess. Nader doesn't need a teleprompter to read his speeches. He understands the problems we face better than anyone. And he'll look you in the eye and tell you. What other candidate can do that?
Actually, Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party has also earned your vote. She worked for us working people in the Congress for over a decade.
She earned the hatred of the ruling class in that time. I think that when she confronted Rumsfield on the missing Pentagon billions, called for the impeachment of Bush, and questioned just what the administration knew about 9-11, she sealed her fate.
The corporate media, if they mention her at all, attack her credibility and her sanity. After all, what kind of person would use a US Congressional position to try to make life better for the American people, instead of using it to enrich herself personally? That's just crazy!
echoexist, nice post; you say now is the time to throw our weight behind the proposals of the 3rd party candidates.
If I may, the time would have been these last few years, the same time the candidates themselves could have been organizing but were not.
Their positions are commendable.
But they have not done the preparation, the organizing, the work.
Why not focus on getting Greens elected to the House or Senate? There they could leverage their impact. (Like Wellstone, a good Democrat was going to do.)
To pop up and split the liberal base every four years helps the Republicans.
United we might stand, but we have been carefully divided.
To a Green in the Senate.
Put demands on Obama? Let us all know how that works out. If you've declared for Obama, he's already ignoring you, taking you for granted. He's moving on to capture the center-right. He captured Wall Street (or vice versa) after you all swept him into the nomination, after he suckered desperate Dems with his sweet talk.
Harvard? University of Chicago? Coal industry? Nuclear? Votes for illegal war funding? Refuses to punish Bush?
And the "demands" would be....?
.
NADER TOP CONTRIBUTORS
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000086
Farouk Systems $9,200
Falconwood Corp $6,600
University of Massachusetts $4,650
Financial West Group $4,600
GH Palmer Assoc $4,600
Kayline Enterprises $4,600
Genentech Inc $4,600
Jigsaw Production $4,600
Twin Tier Pathology Assoc $4,600
Seabree Partners Mgt $4,600
Luigino's Inc $4,600
Alpha Garment $4,600
Rizk Construction $4,600
American Church $4,570
Ann Taylor Corp $4,300
University of South Carolina $4,300
James Odling $4,100
Scsra $4,100
Proven Managment $3,800
Lynx Investment Advisory $3,300
.
Wow....look at those HUGE donations (sarcasm)....I can see how people would question this true patriot and champion for consumer & citizens rights....with massive donations like these I would be worried too.
.
McCAIN TOP CONTRIBUTORS
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424
Merrill Lynch $298,413
Citigroup Inc $269,251
Morgan Stanley $233,272
Goldman Sachs $208,395
JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975
AT&T Inc $174,487
Blank Rome LLP $150,426
Credit Suisse Group $150,025
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,787
UBS AG $140,165
PricewaterhouseCoopers $140,120
US Government $137,617
Bank of America $129,475
Wachovia Corp $122,846
Lehman Brothers $117,500
FedEx Corp $113,453
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $104,250
US Army $103,613
Bear Stearns $99,300
Pinnacle West Capital $97,700
.
.
OBAMA TOP CONTRIBUTORS
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Goldman Sachs $691,930
University of California $611,207
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
Harvard University $435,769
Google Inc $420,174
UBS AG $404,750
National Amusements Inc $389,140
Microsoft Corp $377,235
Lehman Brothers $370,524
Sidley Austin LLP $350,302
Moveon.org $347,463
Skadden, Arps et al $340,264
Time Warner $338,527
Wilmerhale Llp $335,398
Morgan Stanley $318,070
Latham & Watkins $297,400
Jones Day $289,476
University of Chicago $278,885
Stanford University $276,038
.
can't help wondering if this might be the more germane set of numbers:
from Center for Responsive Politics - top contributors in 2008 campaign cycle:
Barack Obama
Goldman Sachs $691,930
University of California $611,207
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
Harvard University $435,769
John McCain
Merrill Lynch $298,413
Citigroup Inc $269,251
Morgan Stanley $233,272
Goldman Sachs $208,395
JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975
See what happens, Lehman Brothers, when you don't pony up? And, looks like, no matter what, Goldman Sachs will come out smelling like a rose. Merrill Lynch should have "hedged" its bets a bit better, maybe?
Is this what they mean by "hedge funds"?
It looks like some investments the hedge funds made will pay off!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Save-Capitalism-by-wagelaborer-0809...
.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
OBAMA TOP CONTRIBUTORS
” You gotta dance with the one who brung ya ”
Read this also...
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/07/hbc-90003343
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/05/america/bundlers.php
.
.
http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/nader_predicted_wall_street_me...
Nader Predicted Wall Street Meltdown
By The Nader/Gonzalez Campaign
Posted on September 17, 2008
Eight years ago, consumer advocate Ralph Nader correctly predicted that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) were on track to follow the savings and loan industry of the 1980s and 90s into a big financial heap of trouble. Nobody listened, and taxpayers are now at risk of losing tens of billions of dollars. Wall Street is being shaken to its foundation. American International Group Inc., the biggest U.S. insurer by assets, is now teetering on the brink of ruin after suffering losses of $18 billion in the past three quarters, largely due to its sub prime mortgage exposure.
"Nader Rips Mae and Mac," declared the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal on June 16, 2000. "Ralph Nader, warning of a potential taxpayer bailout similar to the savings and loan crisis, urged lawmakers to cut government benefits to mortgage-market giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which he called 'poster children for corporate welfare.'"
This year Nader, who is also running for president as an independent, is getting credit for his prescience.
"Give one presidential candidate credit for identifying the problem and getting the policy right - and doing so before the twin government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went into the tank in mid-July," wrote Lou Dubose in The Washington Spectator on Aug. 1. Dubose went on to quote Nader's June 15, 2000 Congressional testimony about HR 3703, a bill that would have reigned in some of the most dangerous tendencies of GSE's, had it passed.
In a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox in 2006, Nader also criticized the exorbitant salary of GSE executives Jamie Gorelick, Daniel Mudd, Robert Levin and Timothy Howard, and noted that their financial incentives were in direct conflict with consumer financial security because of the grave moral hazard created by accounting manipulations they sanctioned that benefited their personal wealth, with no penalty for being caught.
"As you continue to investigate the Fannie Mae accounting debacle, we are writing to urge you to seek civil sanctions, including disgorgement, from senior executives who profited directly from the misconduct at Fannie Mae, and that you urge the Department of Justice to give careful consideration to criminal prosecution of these individuals," wrote Nader.
Candidate Nader has called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt, an end to corporate subsidies and unconditional taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and a start to the aggressive prosecution of corporate criminals.
In his prepared remarks for New York Times editors in its Washington Bureau, Nader stated: "Given the contrast between the 'free market' ideology of the Republicans and the corporate or state socialism that is their increasing practice, the time is ripe for full Congressional hearings next year on the organized power, greed and lack of regulation that is shaking the foundations of Wall Street."
Nader added, "What we need to do now is find a just way to deal with the millions of homeowners facing foreclosure and make sure that this level of financial market manipulation does not happen again."
He elaborated a 10-point plan to cool off the financial markets meltdown:
1. No bailouts without conditions and reciprocity in the form of stock warrants.
2. No more lobbying for any company that is bailed out.
3. No golden parachutes and get out of jail free cards for guilty executives.
4. No bailouts without public hearings.
5. Reduce the moral hazard in U.S. mortgage markets by introducing covered bonds for the majority of mortgage products as they do in Western Europe. That gives institutions that finance mortgages an incentive to be prudent, because they cannot just unload them and wipe their hands clean of the liability, but are instead on the hook if the homeowner defaults.
6. Maintain neighborhood stability and housing security by passing a law with a sunset clause allowing below median-value homeowners facing foreclosure the right to rent-to-own their homes at fair market value rates.
7. Avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than 15-20 times the annual fair market rent value of the home.
8. Make the Federal Reserve a Cabinet Position, so it is accountable to Congress, as well as making sure all Federal Reserve Bank presidents are appointed by the President and answerable to congress.
9. Reduce conflicts of interest by taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment.
10. Implement a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives to deter casino-style capitalism.
.
.
Nader/Gonzales is looking better and BETTER...
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
Support by giving DONATIONS to make this happen ...
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!! WORLD PEACE !!!!!!! End THE WARS......
.
translucent Lisa,
"Obama '08"
What does his portfolio look like?
His biggest single holding is Cisco. A quarter mill in '04. They work "hand in glove" with the Chinese government on surveillance according to Naomi Klein. A real progressive.
His '04 FEC filing listed 2.3 million dollars invested in the corporations he used to rail against, including several DOD contractors, Goldman Sachs, Wachovia and Merril Lynch. A real progressive.
I'd like to know his holdings now. But he's more secretive than Cheney.
The public wants Nader's policies but they want Obama to give it to them.
Ain't gonna happen.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
Even when truly independent Republicans and Democrats such as Ron Paul and Kucinich tried, they were kicked out by their own parties. We need to unite the third/Independent parties, non-conservative non-rightwinger ones, and the Republicans and Democrats truly fed up with their own parties into a Progressive/Liberal INDEPENDENT Party of its own if we're going to have hope for significant reform.
Sorry I don't have the link but Ron Paul, et. al., put together a "platform" based on consensus issues between libertarians (small l), Progressives, and Constitution Party. (End militarism, restore civil liberties, get finances under control). But before we do this we've got to enact Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or we'll never get a third party elected.
Omigod
Nader right?
how can he be right?
he is the anti christ responsible for all of Bush's actions and that of Hitler.
In fact, according to the Democrats Nader is responsible for the common cold too.
He works with the devil you know.
Maybe it's high time everyone admit that it wasn't Nader voters who cost Gore the 2000 election but Gore voters who cost Nader.
Beware the unskeptical Democrat.
Translucent...if Nader did have dirty money then why isn't the press or major corporations like GE exposing it? The reason is that he is 'DIRT FREE' just because you google something doesn't necessarily mean it is true info. You think Ralph is a hypocrit.....and you support Obama??? What is translucent in his campaign????? GEEEZZZ Wonders never cease!!!!!
I AM VOTING NADER/GONZALEZ in '08 ...unrepentent '04 Nader voter....
Freethinker
Are you trying to be funny? On his 2004 FEC filing he listed ownership of 12k worth of GE stock.
And 2.3 million dollors invested in Corporations, including the Gap and Halliburton.
Ralph Nader has hundreds of thousands of dollars (he won't say exactly how much) in Fidelity Magellan.
Their top 25 holdings include:
Merrill Lynch
Wachovia
And Goldman Sachs.
His spokesperson modestly called Ralph a prophet.
More accurately he is a hypocrite, an absolute hypocrite. Know the man by the 'companies he keeps.' Actions, Investments, speak louder than words.
Halliburton, Wal-Mart, General Dynamics and Raytheon/Cluster Bombs are also FM holdings.
Google Nader Fidelity Magellan
Then Google Fidelity Magellan Holdings.
"I told you so," HE said? If your stomach is not turned by this hypocrisy from Ralph, the Prophet, well, that's nice.
Obama '08.
"More accurately he is a hypocrite, an absolute hypocrite. Know the man by the 'companies he keeps.' Actions, Investments, speak louder than words."
According to the above listed standard, I guess that makes Obama a hypocrite too. Obama has collected over 500,000 by the Coal industry as reported by the Center for Responsive politics. He voted for subsidies to the coal industry to produce liquid fuel from coal, which Green Peace asserts adds 5 times the carbon emissions to the environment as does burning coal. Opensecrets dot com also reports Obama accepting cash from numerous banking industries, to whit he voted for Biden's Bankruptcy legislation that attacks the poor, but provides loopholes to the wealthy; he voted for FISA another insider loophole bill to protect Telcoms.
So what does the above quote tell us?
Namely, this Cat is living in a dream world when it comes to his own sentiments.
I note you insult me but do not attempt to refute what I said.
Not one word.
Insulting others is one of the primary identifying characteristics of Nader Lovers.
That and not refuting simple facts put forth.
See above for examples of both.
Yawn.
You bring up Obama; He has no money in Raytheon, who makes Cluster bombs, Ralph does. Diefy him, I don't care.
Was the "insult" post removed? I see no insults here.
The information that came up for me was a Salon.com article from 2000, and a pointer to Nader's 2003 personal finances statement filed in 2004. I'd like to read more current information than something from the last presidential election cycle. Do you have specific information to point to that is more recent (not merely keywords to use with search engines)?
Also, I must admit, this still strikes me as arguing against perfection—presenting a false dichotomy (Nader or Obama) to try to force someone to choose the status quo (all "progressives" are supposed to favor the Democrat, no matter what they do right?). Even if what you're alleging is still true I'm left to compare the candidates on their political history on big issues (voting record where applicable), their campaign funding sources, and their current political ideas. Nader comes out far better looking than Obama (more war in Afghanistan—how many more deaths and trillions spent there?; voting for war—capitulating to a bogus "support the troops" argument instead of challenging the Democrat ownership of the Iraq occupation since the 2006 mid-term elections; supporting the death penalty) and McCain. Both corporate candidates depend on what opensecrets.org calls "Among Wall Street's Tumblers". Obama and McCain are both benefitting from the media blackout around Nader's 8-year-old prophesy and unfair exclusion of anyone but the two leading corporate party candidates. A fair way to determine who should be in the debates is to go by who is on enough ballots to theoretically win the presidency, possibly also consult reputable public opinion polls (Zogby, for instance, says roughly half the US wants Barr & Nader in the mainstream TV debates).
All this information and more can be brought up in debates and we can let the public decide with better and more information about where candidates stand on salient issues. Instead we'll get dual press conferences where nobody is allowed to speak ad hoc, even the people in the audience read from prepared and vetted questions. This is a huge point of shame for any national Democrat or Republican.
I don't see any US Presidential candidate with the activist or political history Nader has (the movie "An Unreasonable Man" covers that excellently including mostly interviews with Nader critics).
In short, I'm still left thinking that Nader has earned everyone's vote because he's the best choice the progressive have and he's offering seriously good ideas (not just the best of the worst). I look forward to reading about Obama and McCain's 10-point plans for helping fix the financial disasters without more corporate socialism.
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
Digital Citizen
Whoopeeee! - Commondreams actually mentioned Nader! Other parties actually exist! They're even RIGHT about things! Maybe the editors have been reading the comments, thought they should throw their leadership a little bone.
How very Democratic of them.
Am I not properly grateful?
Oregoncharles
Its like Bernie Sanders says. If these Corporations are too big to allow to fail they are TOO BIG to allow to exist.
We need a strong modern dose of ANTI-TRUST regulation and enforcement.
Nader deserves respect for holding rational positions and fighting for issues that benefit ordinary people. But having watched that sanctimonious jackass Bob Barr during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, I say, whoopee, he got one right, big deal.
Like they said about Greenspan--evn a stopped clock is right twice a day.