Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Nader Displays New Fervor on the Bailout Issue
"There are no bailouts for the working people of this country!" said Mr. Nader, 74, addressing a crowd of several hundred people on Wall Street, a mix of cheering fans toting "Jail Time for Corporate Crime" signs, curious workers on their lunch breaks and bewildered tourists snapping pictures. "Just bailouts for the speculative corporations of this country."
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader speaks at a rally on Wall Street across from the New York Stock Exchange, October 16, 2008. Nader and running mate Matt Gonzalez are on the ballot in 45 states, including California and New York. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid) In the $700 billion bailout plan for the financial system, Mr. Nader, now on his fourth presidential run, has finally found a real-life event to illustrate what he has made a cause of his career.
"Oh yeah, it's got everything," Mr. Nader said in an interview after the rally. "Taxation without representation, no public hearings. This is the worst yet, procedurally and substantively."
Mr. Nader continues to draw scorn for his role in the 2000 election, when many Democrats felt his long-shot candidacy destroyed Al Gore's chances of becoming president. But this time, some polls in critical swing states like Florida suggest he is drawing votes from Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee.
Mr. Nader has made his opposition to the bailout the cornerstone of his campaign, making appearances in nearly every state, largely under the radar of the national news media. His aides say he has sometimes attracted crowds in the thousands, especially in liberal enclaves like Madison, Wis., and in frontier states, like Colorado and Nevada.
The rally on Thursday was staged across the street from the New York Stock Exchange, where his campaign had set up a 31-piece band to play before his arrival, a large banner reading "Socialism Saves Capitalism" and a 25-foot-tall inflatable pink pig to drive home the message about corporate greed.
According to an article in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 2000, Mr. Nader sounded an early warning about the government-sponsored lending institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The latest New York Times/CBS News poll showed Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, with a 14-percentage-point lead among likely voters in a head-to-head matchup with Mr. McCain, but when Mr. Nader was included in the question, the race narrowed, with 51 percent of those surveyed saying they were supporting Mr. Obama, 39 percent supporting Mr. McCain, and 3 percent for Mr. Nader.
In 2000, Mr. Nader received 2.7 percent of the nationwide vote, and in 2004, on far fewer states' ballots, only 0.38 percent.
This year, his campaign said he would be on the ballot in 45 states, everywhere but Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Texas.
168 Comments so far
Show AllYay, Ralph!! You are a true hero, a true man of the people, willing to look the truth straight in the eye and say it like it is. Never give up!!! You are an inspiration to millions.
Nader 2008 !!
Rumpled Ralph. Yup, that says it all.
Yup, the other 2 seem more concerned with getting the wrinkles out of their high priced suits than out of the economy. Well I guess we all have different priorities, now don't we?
"But this time, some polls in critical swing states like Florida suggest he is drawing votes from Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee."
What ?! He is drawing votes away from McCain ?! Darn ... that should make Nader really mad. His singular objective of destroying the Dems is at risk !
his objective is to give people a choice...but i guess some people just can't see that
I still don't understand why Nader endorsed Cynthia McKinney as the Green Party candidate and a month later decided to run himself. What was the point of that?
Nader and McKinney share many of the same principal ideals. Also, Mr. Nader supports the candidacy and relevance of all 3rd party candidates, so is likely to say good things about them, particularly Greens. Cooperation, man! There'd be no 3rd party debate on Sunday without the cooperation of the 3rd party candidates, who got together and held a joint press conference some time back...
The 3rd Party debate, originally scheduled for this Sunday, has been CANCELLED.
Here's an article about it.
.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/54383.html
Your Sunday's free again. 3rd-party debate canceled
By Maria Recio | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The troubled presidential debate for third party candidates scheduled for Sunday at Columbia University in New York was canceled Friday after none of the four candidates had committed to the event.
"Due to circumstances beyond our control, several of the candidates decided not to participate in the debate at the last minute," said Lauren Salz, a student with the Columbia Political Union, which was hosting the debate.
Independent Ralph Nader, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin were expected to participate in what was billed as a "historic" event.
Barr claimed a conflict while McKinney opted for an online debate originally scheduled for that evening. Baldwin was reluctant to travel to New York. Nader was willing to participate, say aides, but, seeing the debate falling apart all week, held back.
McKinney, it turns out, also had another reason for staying in her hometown of Atlanta, said her running mate, Rosa Clemente. McKinney is attending the Black Panther Party annual reunion.
.
I needanap and a long cigarette...
wish I could join you.
They didn't say what Obama and McCain want to do about it.
Now is the perfect time for the R&D's to prove their worth.
Certainly they have rehersed enough by now.
What have they got to lose???
What have they got to lose? Their credibility. They both know Nader could wipe the floor with them which is why they wouldn't accept the invitation to participate and they wouldn't let Nader participate in the rigged MSM debates. Wouldn't you think that the devotees of the 2 "majors" would welcome the chance to showcase the "superiority" of their candidates platforms over a real challenge to their worth and encourage, nay, demand that, their candidates participate? Ha,Ha,Ha, whatever could I be thinking! For some bizarre reason I still have this hope that people actually WANT democracy. Silly me!
Actually, Nader won the popular vote in the GP primaries, but eventually declined to seek the nomination due to the political immaturity (to use Cynthia McKinney's own words, not Nader's), the endless bickering and the infighting that characterizes our sadly dysfunctional (and with our ridiculous "consensus" system, antidemocratic) party. For more on this, check out this link:
STATEMENT ON THE GREEN PARTY AND RALPH NADER
by the National Draft Nader Committee
March 5, 2008
http://www.draftnader.org/
You may want to read this. It's very long but most informative about the Green Party and Ralph Nader...
http://www.counterpunch.org/camejo04062005.html
April 6, 2005
The Crisis in the Green Party
The Magic Number 39 and My Meetings with Cobb, Kucinich and the Steering Committee
By PETER CAMEJO
The Green Party needs to be reformed no doubt. Still, if Nader had stayed in the Green Party, believe me, he would have won hands down. We're gonna need more like him and not the Cobb cowards trying to ruin the party.
Here is a good book on the subject, as well: "Independent Politics: The Green Party Strategy Debate" edited by Howie Hawkins (who is currently running for Congress in NY 25CD), Haymarket Books, 2006.
The article was very good, thanx Nannie, but it raises at least a couple of issues for me.
The first is that I notice while he criticizes Kucinich for staying with the Dems even as the leadership "goes right", he encourages Greens to stay with the Greens even as its leadership goes Dem. It seems to me that both positions reflect the ultimate weakness of party politics. To whit, the reluctance of folks who have invested much of themselves and their identities in a particular party of whatever stripe to leave that party when it is "highjacked" by a subversive element - the Dems by corporate control, the Greens by Dems. Granted, I do believe McKinney is a truly disaffected Dem, but I don't think she is the best choice for the Greens on a national stage; turning down a C-Span debate to attend a BLack Panthers reunion, regardless of how you feel about the Panthers, I don't think was indicative of a desire to include us all.
For me, who doesn't have a whole lot of patience with the choice of "strategy" over principle because I have seen too many principles sabotaged and/or undermined by "strategies", it is a logical choice for me to simply choose the truly progressive candidate, no matter what decal (s)he has on his/her sweat shirt. So, even as I remain a "registered" Dem for the sole purpose of voting for a progressive Dem (in this case it was Kucinich) in the primaries, I don't think twice about voting for Nader in the election, even if Kucinich "endorses" Obama. Party registration means nothing more for me than a ticket to the primary (no crossover voting allowed in NY). Conversely, were I a "registered" Green, I would feel no obligation to vote for a Green candidate, per se. I am supporting a Green/Populist, Hawkins, in NY, because he is the most progressive. The argument that one should vote Green to get a magic 5%, or whatever it is, to qualify for public funding seems pretty poor as a determining argument if a) I think another candidate is better, b) public funding is dwarfed by corporate funding and c) the leadership of the party that would get the funding apparently is in danger of being high-jacked by a subversive element.
I would love to have the delicious dilemma of having to choose between multiple progressives who do have nat'l appeal at various levels, say Kucinich and Nader (though I think that perhaps, though I am certainly in no position to speak for him, Nader wouldn't have run if Kucinich had been the nominee), but for now, the choice is fairly clear. I humbly suggest to Dems that if you really do want your party to pick a progressive, your best "strategy" is to vote only for progressive candidates, period. If you will do that for a few cycles, and not succumb to the "lesser evil" or the "ABB" strategy, the Dems WILL get the message; the only thing they want more than fat corporate checks is votes. But with the size and power of these checks increasing, the size and power of our support for Independent candidates must as well, or we the people will slip farther and farther behind, and time, in case you haven't noticed, is a'wastin'. Every time we succumb to the "not this time argument" we sink further into the quick sand. And if the Dems, as a party, persist in their corporate ways, let them fade away and good riddance. However nostalgic we may be, we simply cannot afford the "luxury" of supporting a "major" party that may have been once a hard working donkey but has now quite obviously become a stubborn mule - remember mules are sterile, and no amount of "hope" or "persuasion" will make a mule fertile.
But first, as I keep saying, we have to remove the fatal pall cast on our decision making processes by "the can't win" tattoo placed on progressives foreheads by those who DON'T WANT us to win.
Keep going, Nannie! Having grandchildren and great-grandchildren children, you are one of the best antidotes to the argument that we "must" vote Dem "for the sake of the children".
Suicide bombers for Nader!
He is by far the best candidate for President if only he had a chance. The weak left in this country makes real change all but impossible. At this point we've just got to keep Palin/McCain out.
"If the polls showed Nader with 25% and Obama at 40% and McCain at 35%, "
This is purely hypothetical. If this was indeed the case i would vote Nader.
mediaho October 17th, 2008 3:11 pm
"If the polls showed Nader with 25% and Obama at 40% and McCain at 35%, "
This is purely hypothetical. If this was indeed the case i would vote Nader"
And how do you expect that he will ever get to 25% if people like yourself don't vote for him. If every one of you bandwagon types would vote for what you want rather than the lesser of two evils Nader would get at least 25% and maybe even enough to win.
No journey can begin without taking that first step
Lobo Gris
The trick is to notice how the Democrats run on the politics of fear, just like the Republicans. Yeah, they tilt it a little differently to fit their cause. But its the same crap that the Republicans put out.
Do you really want to be ruled by people who try to manipulate people with fear? Haven't we already had enough of that?
Vote Nader!
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"He is by far the best candidate for President if only he had a chance. The weak left in this country makes real change all but impossible. At this point we've just got to keep Palin/McCain out."
That's the point I've come to as well.
After we stop McCain/Palin, progressives/liberals/the Left needs to stop trying to herd cats and figure out how to trust one another. We don't now, and that makes our work nearly impossible.
The first thing on my list is to kill the notion of perfection. It don't exist.
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
Ted Markow October 17th, 2008 11:23 pm
"The first thing on my list is to kill the notion of perfection. It don't exist."
Your implication being that Nader supporters are a bunch of prima donnas unwilling to vote for anything but the absolute perfect candidate. Further implying that Obama isn't really that bad, just slightly imperfect, but lets look at the facts.
Obama not only voted for the 850 billion dollar Wall Street bailout bill in the face of e-mails, letters, and phone calls that were 100 to 1 against it, but actively encouraged other Democratic Representatives and Senators to do the same.
Obama voted for FISA after saying he wouldn't. A bill that allows the government to spy on the people in violation of the 4th amendment and which gave immunity to the telecoms for having illegally done so in the past.
Obama voted for the Patriot act, an act which violates our civil rights.
Obama supports expanding the military and the war in Afghanistan.
Obama has not promised to end the war in Iraq, but only to follow the advice of the commanders on the ground, the same position held by Bush and McCain.
Obama supports clean coal technology, which is anything but clean or environmentally friendly.
Obama wants to force parents to provide health insurance for their children whether they can afford to or not and intends to fine those who do not comply. "Sorry Johnny there won't be any dinner tonight because we can't afford it, but the good news is that tomorrow we can take you to the doctor to check on your malnutrition."
Obama opposed and still opposes impeaching Bush. A president that has violated the Constitution, plus both U.S. and international law.
Obama supports "free trade" which has enriched the corporate elite at the expense of the American worker by sending good paying jobs overseas to low wage unregulated areas of the world.
And yet you imply that Obama is only slightly imperfect. I don't think so.
Lobo Gris
No...get this: The system is broken. Go ahead and send Nader to fix it.
Obama is not McCain. That's what I'm voting for. The rest is up to us. We are it.
Don't agree, fine. But expecting anything in politics to change via ANY proxy is futile. We-are-it!
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
OK, first off. Can you PROMISE me that next time the Reps won't put up anybody that "we HAVE to keep out"? After all, last time it was Bush, this time it's McCain, who's next? Palin? Leiberman?
You see, here's the problem. If we wait to vote progressive until there are no more "scary" Reps, we'll be waiting for Godot.
As for perfection, ha, nobody that I know of is claiming Nader's perfect, just better (by a wide margin) than the others. Taking Nader's positions are the only way we're going to go in the direction we need to go and the only one taking Nader's positions (outside of McKinney) is - Nader! Hey, give me a Dem with Nader's positions and I'll support him/her. Did you support Kucinich? Are YOU a member of "the weak left"? If so, time to eat your Wheaties, my friend, and step up to the plate!
What I find fascinating about the whole discussion on this thread as well as so many others is that people don't seem to be arguing over whether Nader's platform is better than Obama's. Most, as far as I can tell, agree that it is. The argument seems to be about whether or not we should let the media decide, once again, who the "electable" candidates are!
Waiting for Godot is waiting for someone who will never come. The politician who will give everything progressives want will never come. Oh, he will campaign, but in this world, he won't be elected.
Yes, I supported Kucinich. Matter of fact, he is the only candidate I have contributed to. Am I a member of the "weak left"? I have no idea what you're talking about. However, if being a member means that I am willing to give and take, yes, I guess I am.
I like Nader, and I like his stance. And yes, I am going to vote for Obama because the powers that be have deemed him electable. That's because in the eyes of the vast majority of the electorate, he is one of two candidates who are electable. The other "electable" candidate, I don't want. That's why my vote for Obama.
I don't like this any more than you. However, my strategy is different. I believe that the system is far too broken for ANY politician to fix. It's up to us to fix and I'd rather start with a President Obama than a President McCain.
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
Precisely! There will never be a Rep "safe" enough that we could "risk" his/her election by not voting Dem, now will there?
The "weak left" is your term - "The weak left in this country makes real change all but impossible" - from your post above.
Please, Ted, read your post again: "I am going to vote for Obama because the powers that be have deemed him electable. That's because in the eyes of the vast majority of the electorate, he is one of two candidates who are electable."
Do you think its possible that "the vast majority" you refer to may believe he is one of only 2 who are "electable" for the same reason you do? Namely, because "the powers that be have deemed him electable"? Don't you think that perhaps that way of thinking, or perhaps that way of letting others (the powers that be) do your thinking, is really what is making "real change all but impossible"? Don't you see, Ted, your decision is based on where you perceive the crowd to be - if the MSM says "he's over there", you'll go over there, if "over here" you'll come over here. You have let the MSM make your choice for you. So because they will never choose a progressive, apparently neither will you, thus making "real change all but impossible".
If the pol we want "won't get elected", its because folks like you won't vote for him/her, even though you would want him! (or am I mistaken in assuming you would want a progressive in office?)
If it's "up to us to fix the system", and you want to "start" with Obama, apparently you believe that it's OK to put the fox in the henhouse, "hoping" he won't eat as many chickens as, as, as what, exactly? If indeed you are just "starting" to work on the problem, I humbly suggest you might want to listen to some who have been working on it for awhile. It's usually not a good idea to "start" with a strategy that has failed too many times before.
It is depressing, Ted. But what depresses me more is knowing there are so many out there just like you who fail to see that it is only the lack of even the very little "courage" it takes to pull a different lever in a little curtained alcove on a particular day that is really what is making "real change all but impossible". Your strategy is the one too many have been following for too long, and see where it has gotten us. It's time for a new "strategy", called "voting for what you want instead of against what you don't". C'mon, Ted, we've been doing it your way for decades, don't you think it's time to try something new?
"C'mon, Ted, we've been doing it your way for decades, don't you think it's time to try something new?"
Sigh...I haven't been doing it "my way" for decades. I have been a Green and am an independent and have supported, campaigned, and voted for plenty of non-Democrats, so please, but that back in your pocket.
I'm sorry I depress you, but that's your problem, not mine. I am taking a different approach, and I don't see it as simply putting the fox in the henhouse. There is NO henhouse! WE are the hens and WE need to fight back. Allowing McCain to become president is a stupid way to start.
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
I agree with many things that I hear from Mr. Nader and I wish more people would listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPbJY2rs0QI
The voice of the country's future, we can only hope.
In the ranks of political analysts and civic activists, no one in the US comes near Nader's honesty, sense of justice, and progressive accomplishments.
Without him --and the various citizen organizations he's created over the years -the US today would be a far worse place than it is.
The fact that he's put proportionally little of his political genuis toward the essential work of building [over the years] a viable 3rd party capable of challenging the corrupt duopoly, has always mystified me. Ralph better than anyone knows that w/o such an organizational mechanism, deep progressive reform will remain almost impossible in the US.
Still, I don't presume to judge him poorly for his lack party building. He no doubt has his reasons for how and where he focuses his energy.
It remains, though, that a dynamically growing progressive party IS direly needed and that, so far, the Greens' organizational leadership, both at state and local levels, is not up to the task.
Progressive citizen movements in the US continue to be impoverished by the lack of organizing and communication skills -- and this must be recognized the the Left.
If things were moving in a healthy direction, we would have at minimum by now, a dozen or so visible leaders with Ralph Nader's analytical skills, moral values, and public visibility, doing the work of organizing citizens to build democracy.
Unfortunately, we have no such thing. And we never will, if we continue the illusion that simply by voting for Nader, we've done enough.
Yeah, unfortunately, the Greens are pretty useless. At least in the places I've list. They seem hopelessly incompetent at politics. And I can't tell if that's just the people involved, or if there's some sort COINTELPRO op going on.
When Nader was here in Denver, at his rally he was talking about a campaign next year to organize congressional races in every district for the next election. I hope they really do that. Or, maybe I should say I hope we really do that.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I am voting Nader for President of course...YEAH
I am voting every Green or Independent for all the other offices in Arkansas.
Got that (D)sen. PRYOR??? no vote from me...
(G)Rebecka Kennedy for Senator of Arkansas...YEAH
You're lucky to have the Green Party for other offices. Out here in South Carolina, the only Green Party access is the Presidential ballot and even there it was a toughie to get.
Good luck out there in AR.
Proud to vote again for Nader. All progressives should unite and vote for him. And of course we will continue to work every year every day for true progressives.
glad to hear from you ralph. must be getting close to election time.
He's always there. Is it just that this is the only time you listen?
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Aha. A corporate media junkie who doesn't follow what Nader does in-between elections. So now we on CD know how uninformed you really are. Brilliant comment, eh?
.
Nader says...
"Wake up Americans! Cut the crap and take over."
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
elizabeth shipley
C span will be holding a debate Sun. Oct. 19, 2008 with the alternative candidates.
The debate has been CANCELLED.
See my post above in this thread.
I'm voting for the guy who floats the 25ft inflatable pink pig in the air. That guy reminds me that I live in the "land of the free, home of the brave".
Yeah, note the difference between Nader and Obama. Obama flew back to Washington to twist arms to make sure his wall street buddies got that $800 billion of our money.
The choice is very clear. Vote Nader.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I don't see putting McCain and Obama in the same category. McCain-Palin are kissing cousins of Bush-Cheney. Obama has moved to the right it is true. And by no means is he perfect. But really on the national level if Nader/Gonzales take enough of a chunk, this is no slam dunk. We may easily get another dose of insanity from McCain-Palin channeling Bush-Cheney. Nader-Gonzales, sadly, do not have a chance. Work on the local and state level for what they represent. In the future it won't be Nader=Gonzales but there are other progressives that can carry on in their tradition. For now keep McCain-Palin out of office.
I love this constant bull from the Democrats. They assert that Obama is better than McCain, but they never give any reasons why. Its just propaganda bull from the Democraps trying to convince you to vote for their pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-bailout, pro-police state candidate over the other pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-bailout, pro-police state candidate.
Please vote for Nader. Its the only way forward.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
To follow up, I'm of the opinion that the best thing that could happen in the Presidential race or any other race is if campaigns like Nader start taking enough votes away that the Democrats lose. Yes, I think a Democratic loss is a good thing.
The key reason is that right now, the left has no voice at all in national politics. The party that used to represent the left has moved so far to the right that they are indistinquishable from McCain and Bush. Heck, Obama sounded like Ronald Reagan during the parts of the debate I caught. Right now, the Democrats think they can do this because they think the left has no power and no place to go.
When they've been caught on open mics, the Democrats refer to the left as 'idiot liberals'. Or, when we do try to pressure them, Nancy Pelosi muses about how she wishes she could have people arrested for protesting within her sight.
So, the best thing we can do right now is just starting kicking the Democrats right where it hurts. Making the Democrats lose should be our primary goal. Kick em right in the balls. And keep doing it until they take us seriously and start to actually represent us. We need to inflict pain on the Democrats until they come begging to us to make a deal so we stop.
Vote Nader. Its the right thing to do. It hits the Democrats right where it hurts. And its the only way progressives will have any voice in future elections.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
this seems to be a standard argument of yours... screw the dems in 08 and then they'll have to listen to us. and in a way, it does have some appeal. but really, how much time do we have to get things turned around? things like environmental degredation and world economic recession are bearing down on us. do we really have the time to blow off the next 4 years just to make a point? and, yeah, i have major doubts about obama and the dems turning things around. but, in my judgment, it's almost a certainty that mcCain/pallin won't turn things around.
i live in a blue state and will be voting for nader. for those of u in contested states, use your best judgment.
I am an independent living in a swing state, and recently got a call from New Mexico for Obama. I informed the caller that I was voting for Nader and bam! the caller hung up on me. Within a day, two ladies from that campaign were at my door. We had a nice talk, I informed them that Obama's energy policy (clean coal, new nuke plants) is a nightmare in my eyes, one of the two agreed there is no such thing as clean coal. The talk was pleasant enough until one of the ladies began talking about the 2000 election and how Nader caused Bush to win. I told her that Nader BRINGS people to the polls that otherwise wouldn't vote, (including me!) and more importantly, in Florida, a higher number of voters were illegally scrubbed by Katherine Harris than the number that voted for Nader. The dems need to stop blaming Nader when they are too lazy or too disorganized to fight for the huge numbers of disenfranchized voters.
i gotta admit....if i lived in a contested state, i'd have a hard time pulling the lever for obama. he's built up quite a laundry list of negatives from my pov and as welshterrier asked on another thread, "how many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see?"