Both Ralph Nader and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and the things they have to say prove once again that minor party candidates ought to be allowed to participate in the Presidential debates. Listen to their recent appearances on the PBS Evening News Hour with Jim Leher for instance. There is much to be impressed about what each has to articulate even if not all of it should be pursued. Bet you find at least one or more of their proposals make great common sense.

Why reject them out of hand? Why ban their voice from being heard in important public forums? Don't our Constitutional principles mean anything anymore? Merely because their ideas come from parties with no chance of being elected (thanks to our present tilted system), it might at least force the main party candidates to start saying something smarter than the usual old rhetoric.

Think about how Ron Paul made the Republican primaries interesting. It should be noted that despite the animosity toward the Socialists back in the 30s, most of their platform was ultimately adopted by both major parties. Read some history books least you doubt it.

Why not at least give a fair listen to those with different approaches? That is how innovation comes about, especially when the current conventional dogma seems to have lead us into disaster.

Signed: Lawlessone [for more irreverence, see resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]

"freefood October 18th, 2008 2:12 pm

...

People seem to feel they are being too rebellious against the two-party system to vote for, say, Nader (although some say they will not vote at all, which is worse that bucking the system, because through inaction not voting simply supports it). ..."

WHILE I UNDERSTAND that perspective, it is not necessarily true; it's easily like judging based on only appearances. It certainly lacks some analysis. There are valid reasons for some voters to abstain from voting. F.e., voters living abroad can have privacy issues with voting from abroad, because we then provide what our vote is on the same card with our personal information, while those of these voters who can travel to the U.S. and do so to vote probably have ordinary ballots on which you don't provide any personal information, or I believe you still don't anyway. I understand the security needs, and if I could travel to the U.S. to vote, then I would, but can't do this trip and my personal info. does [not] go on my ballots (the rule I apply), so I won't vote from abroad, either.

If I could go to the U.S. to vote, then either Nader or McKinney would get an additional vote and neither will win, so by abstaining, no harm is really committed by my abstinence.

Additionally, perhaps some voters who abstain do so due to realizing that they don't know enough about any of the candidates running electoral campaigns and that to vote responsibly (and with fairness towards all running candidates) requires being responsibly [informed] about all of the candidates. Not everyone has the means to be this well informed. And I despise people voting irresponsibly, so I support voters who abstain due to being too uninformed about the candidates or simply politics.

Etc. There are other examples.

And another way to consider this and only under the hypothetical situation in which Obama and McCain would be closely matched, which they're evidently not, is that all voters for third-party candidates won't be voting for Obama, so they can be blamed (rightly or wrongly) for incidently supporting McCain, harming Obama's chances.

People like name brands. I heard that many times name brand companies sell the same products under different labels for cheaper. For example, Target Dept. Stores don't make cough syrup, they buy it in large quantities from the name brand companies, repackage it, and pass along some of the savings to the customers. If you read the labels you'll see it's true, the ingredients are identical. Yet the sheeple continue to pay more for the same stuff.

Taken to an extreme you have my teenage children who will not wear a pair of jeans unless they are made by certain brands that have been marketed to teenagers as being "cool". I could buy them an almost identical pair of jeans for half the money but they won't wear them because they aren't "cool".

Obama/McCain are the "cool" name brands. Other brands such as Nader, McKinney or socialists are actually vastly superior in every respect to the name brands but the people will not buy them. I guess they aren't reading the label and they don't think they're cool.

Nader opposes that bailout and Obama and McCain march lock step on the issue. Now Obama is talking about moving back efforts on climate change as a result because he helped fleece the treasury. Actually a good thing given his environmental plan is hostile to the earth community of beings. The more things change the more they stay the same.

What's truly ridiculous is all the rallying behind the two major candidates, both of whom are bought and paid for by special interests, and whom- just you watch- will do nothing substantial when in office for this country. Tsk-Tsk Boo-Hoo... too late at that point to have made the intelligent decision to at least vote your consciencefor one of the better choices (for me, that's Ralph Nader, a true American hero).

The Democratic and Republican parties have outlived their usefulness- except for the privilages elites, and you can bet, they will continue to benefit regardless of whether McCain or Obama are in office. Vote your conscience: time for change, time for new parties.

So, here we go again, with people using the same tired excuse that it may sway the vote one way or another to vote for somebody else (like Nader). HEY, it doesn't matter if it does, because, first of all, if either of the two major candidates win, it will mean more of the same that has already helped destroy this country (as in un-Democratic, Un-American government, whose supporters have been living through their own Golden Era, while the rest of us writhe in variously derived forms of agony).

People seem to feel they are being too rebellious against the two-party system to vote for, say, Nader (although some say they will not vote at all, which is worse that bucking the system, because through inaction not voting simply supports it). Amazing, how afraid people are to walk outside the bounds of voting convention. I have heard so many people say, "Neither McCain nor Obama is worth voting for"- and they are NOT VOTING! I say, even if you don't think another candidate can possibly be a viable option, it at least makes a more powerful statement to vote for them than do nothing at all.

WAKE UP: change relies on the nonconformists whom have the decency- and nerve- to make a stand do the right things needed to instigate positive change. Don't say, "I'm not voting", or, "I don't really like him, but I'm voting anyway, because the other guy is such-and-such". Why not instead say, "I'm voting my conscience, even if they lose". And spread the word, encourage others to do the same.

Who knows, maybe this word-of-mouth campaign will work (because our media is so corrupt, no way can a candidate with merit get notice- so it is up to people to share the news/ideas they have).

While you are talking at your kitchen table (and other settings engaged in conversations ith real people), it doesn't hurt to also remind folks, it's up to the People to instigate a peaceful revolution, one demanding media and campaign reform, so we can finally have exposure to vastly superior options, not just forced to choose between the bad and the worse.

A 'greater intelligence' determines everything psychically and psychologically...every human being is derived from a Being greater than him or herself (not promoting the belief of organized religion here). Denial of this does not change this fact, nor does affirmation within belief or disbelief. The one speaking the truth counts less than the truth itself. Truth is not something static but dynamic and is evidenced only in relationship.

Thus, though it may appear different each time it manifests, the principle is always the same. Our understanding of truth, or awareness within it, is what brings authentic freedom of action, and lack of understanding and awareness brings discord, disharmony, and an internal 'narrowing,' which is what we have today. Ralph or any other leader is not what is important--that kind of 'importance' is measured in terms of egoic illusion--only if what they are expressing is true or not. Why? Any lie will meet with Reality sooner or later. It is perhaps possible to resist it for awhile, but the more we resist the worse it will be once the dam bursts.

That is what is happing now. The dam of lies is beginning to burst, and it won't be much longer before the whole wall comes crumbling down. This is wonderful opportunity to create a more harmonious and spiritual world, but that will ultimately be determined by the minds and hearts of the majority of human beings.

The only thing that will help us is to become more aware and work toward self-understanding, for that is the ONLY thing that will bring meaningful and lasting change.

Here's a great 9 minute video of Reverend Jarrett Maupin, who also spoke at Nader's Wall Street Rally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFfOYerH-3M

Hank Fur- Thank You ! Every relationship has a bottom line, killing people in foreign lands for American hegemony is mine (why it's not everyone's I'm completely baffled, and sorely disappointed). No matter how much fear is trotted out in forums like this (but McCain/Palin eat babies!!), I can not vote for someone who does not have this as THEIR bottom line.

The USA has the most shameful and corrupt political system in a hundred years, yet the population will be voting for the same two parties.

What is in the water that makes those people vote against their own interests and for the interests of the rich and powerful?

What I see by all of this is what a sad state our democracy is in..
One we be hard to pressed I think to even continue to call it a democracy anymore.
The term I see sometimes used and think perhaps is more apt is oligarchy..
Ruled by the elite, mock elections, with pre-selected candidates..
The illusion of democracy is maintained for the masses, the illusion of choice.

One of our founding fathers set the stage for this illusion we call a democracy,explaining the true intent:
The constitutional system was originally designed “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority,” in the words of the leading framer, James Madison. Political power, he explained, must be in the hands of “the wealth of the nation,” men who can be trusted to “secure the permanent interests of the country”—the rights of the propertied—and to defend these interests against the “leveling spirit” of the general public. If the public were allowed to participate freely in elections, Madison warned his colleagues, their “leveling spirit” might lead to measures to improve the conditions of those who “labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings.”

83 comments and NO ONE has pointed out how the following paragraph completely negates the "Nader threatens Obama" assumption that many people use to try to persuade us?:

-----"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."-----

Umm, This is a bit tricksy isn't it? Sure a "14-percentage-point lead" (spelled out so it seems HUGE) is "narrowed" to a 51-39-3 percent lead (spelled out with intervening words to try to get you to miss the obvious conclusion).

If you can get past the 51% making things seem "close" you'll notice right away that Obama's lead is still a commanding 12%. But the conclusion that they don't seem to want you to get to is that that is only a 2% point loss in the Obama-McCain differential while Nader gains 3% support.

Therefore 1% of Nader's vote is coming from undecided and Never-Obama voters NOT Obama voters. Then you realize what you might have seen quicker if the "Journalist" were not trying to hide it - 51+39+3 = 93% not 100%.

7% REMAIN UNDECIDED even with Nader included! Every single one of them could go for McCain and Obama would still win by 3% points and with a "majority mandate". The undecideds AND the Nader voters could ALL vote McCain and Obama would STILL win by 2% points and with a "majority mandate".

These fall within the margin of error for such polls.

But the big, BIG point here is:

This poll indicates that ALL of the remaining undecideds + the Nader voters -a 10% total turnout, or more than THREE times his current support- could vote Nader and Obama would STILL win by TWELVE PERCENT (spelled out in caps to make it REALLY hit home) and would STILL have a majority mandate!

If we knew the undecided rate in the "head-to-head matchup" question then the picture would be even clearer. I think it says a lot that it is not included. But the basic point is still clear:

A Nader vote DOES NOT hurt Obama, only a McCain vote does.

As long as every one who is already NOT a commited McCain voter votes Obama OR NADER, McCain will LOSE quite handily.

So stop pestering us about OUR votes, and go find some "fencesitter" who might actually vote McCain for some reason to switch.

Don't Panic,
-matti.

P.S. I realize that national polls don't necessarily cover the real complexity of the State-by-State races, but i think that the mighty, untouchable-by-Nader split between Obama and McCain was worthy of mention.

.

I’ll say it again…

We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.

Never before as we do now

http://www.votenader.org/index.html

.

.

" What did you learn today?
Did you learn how to believe?
or...Did you learn how to think?"

~ Seventeen Traditions ~ by Ralph Nader

.

I love a lot of Ralph has to offer and I would gladly vote for him if I was confident that he had any chance of getting his excellent solutions put to work once in office. However, having studied American history a lot and having my parents and relatives tell me their experiences throughout the Great Depression, there is something I hate to say but I must. Does anyone remember what happened to FDR even when the public strongly supported his New Deal plans? He faced tremendous opposition in Congress, the courts, and even faced an attempted rightwing military coup in 1934 with 4 other potentials for retry although they fizzled out by luck. Ralph Nader is far closer to FDR than just about any Democrat no doubt. However, in today's society, people are not united. Just yesterday, when an article about who this "Joe the Plumber" really is gets posted, some people immediately scream out that he's getting persecuted when in fact he is being used by the conservative elites to further undermine the working class. We the people should already be uniting against the corporate elites but instead we're busy exploiting each other's weaknesses by deriding socialism which FDR and Nader tremendously support, mocking community organization, and even showing hostility towards non-partisan groups such as ACORN that are trying to help people vote regardless of who the voter supports. Moreover, the corporate media and Congress and the courts are more nastier than FDR's time, more heavily armed and financed, and can count on enough of the people to be gullible and dysfunctional. The only way we are going to see a President Nader in this century provided that this country even exists is we need to unite and fight for pols at local and state levels in addition to Congress, White House, and the courts. Moreover, we're all going to have to put aside our cultural differences and take another look and reconsider the economic and foreign policies levied against us and plan on getting our Congress to take down or at least reform these policies big time. Right now, I fail to see how Ralph Nader is going to expect to get anywhere. He will face an even more hostile Congress than FDR did in his time. And both parties are unlikely to sit still because with their votes and their allies in the media will most likely invent phony polling for impeaching and removing Nader and misdirect people's anger against Nader. And Nader has been unable to influence Congress for the past 20 years and is getting nowhere even today. We need a young Ralph Nader at this point as well.

Ralph has the great advantage of having been correct and having stayed "on message" for 12 years(so was Ross Perot when he talked about the insanity of how we structure our debt and the sucking sound as NAFTA exported our good paying manufacturing jobs to 3rd and even 4th world countries).

All the "smart set" have finally run out of b.s. and credibility as all their posturing has turned out to be uniformly wrong. All they can do is pretend not to notice and hope nobody else does or try to change the subject (a task made considerably more difficult in light of the events of the past 30 days).

Poet predicts the MSM is going to try to talk the Nader campaign to death by deliberately distorting his clear message in order to try to change the subject from his critique of Wall Street bribery and influence to Nader's personality. I hope he doesn't take the bait.

Poet

I'm a bit miffed at the author for this (among other misleading comments in the article): "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."

Nader "FINALLY?" found a "real-life event?" He's been searching most of his adult life and, low and behold, after 45 years, voila! a real-life event to sink his teeth into. There were no "real-life" events in the 1960s when thousands died simply because auto manufacturers refused to make seat-belts a standard feature? Now it's the law, thanks to Nader. Clean air, toxic waste laws, the list could go on and on. Wouldn't you know it: the article is from the New York Times. Figures.

By the way, what the hell has Barack Obama ever done?

Think about it:

At this important historical juncture, we, the American people, have an opportunity to defy history and to defy expectations about what is collectively possible. By turning away from that which is harmful and instead turn toward that which is healing, we allow ourselves genuine hope, not sound-bite hope that turns on a dime into betrayal, but the real, honest thing. I am energized by the hope Nader projects. We energize each other here on CD, and out in our work places, our political work.

Yes, hope is a powerful engine but it has to have fuel and the fuel has to be the real stuff - attainable, clear goals that make it possible for us, not only to improve life on this planet but to create the joyful and meaningful life we all yearn for. We can't do that in the midst of corporately driven politics, corporately driven materialism, a system where people are used as military fodder and cheap labor but get very little in return for their efforts.

We can make peace with all of our brothers and sisters in this world, it's possible. We can live productive, prosperous lives. We all yearn for that. By turning away from the one path and towards another, together we can make it happen. The same old corporate path will enrich a very few, degrade the environment, and destroy lives. That should immediately be rejected.

Obama and McCain should be required to carry red signs that say: DANGER!
because that's what kind of policies they represent.

You would have thought as badly as the Democrats have sold us out and how the Republicans have run the country into the ground that people would be deserting the Democrats and Republicans in droves, but no.

I guess Americans are either too conservative or too stupid to vote for their best interest. That must be the reason over half will vote for Obama, and a little less than half will be voting for McCain, which will give us roughly the SAME.

Too convervative or too stupid? Or perhaps it's too conservative and too stupid. If the shoe fits wear it and I apologize if I offended anyone.

I don't care if he's PURPLE.

Color, Race, gender or religion should never be criteria for political office.

It is what's between the two ears. The Brains, Knowledge that count.

Trust, honesty, dedication .

but, he...he's an...Arab...

No gods, no kings

Great values, policies etc... but weak campaign, Ralph.

Maybe Gonzalez should have been at the head of the ticket.

Alan MacDonald

'Democracy advocate', Ralph Nader, has spent his whole career standing up against this 'corporatist Empire' in its attacks against our society, our political economy, our laws and our entire, indivisible democracy.

Nader has never failed to take-on the 'corporatist Empire' attacking average 'working class' Americans:

First in the economic sphere, where everyone knows that corporate power and 'corporate Empire' reigns against our personal safety, our Constitutional and legal rights, our privacy, our environment, and many other rights supposed to be protected by 'our' government.

But when it became clear to Ralph that the 'corporatist Empire' had started to take-over government itself and cancerously spread from the economic sphere to the political sphere of our whole society, our total political economy, and our waning democracy, Ralph Nader volunteered like a minute-man for democracy and fought against the 'corporatist Empire' in all its oppressions; economic, legal, AND political ---- just as the first minute-men rose up to battle for democracy against the British Empire's economic, legal, and political oppression and tyranny over the American colonies.

We’re not colonial subjects --- but free men! And we’re not going to be dictated to by an Empire, regardless of how it disguises itself as some unholy axis of a political idiot pawn like Bush and greedy corporate profiteers like the Wall Street Gangsters, working together behind the scenes.

Ralph Nader is not some loyalist/royalist front-man for the ‘corporatist Empire’ selected to be a political appointee of the empire, like the American colony’s ‘royal governors’ were selected by the crown and the British East India Corporation, to dominate and rule over their ‘working-class subjects’.

Ralph Nader has proven more than any man that he will not be bought by the corporatist Empire’s treasure trove of royalist money, appointments, and hidden ‘deals’ (like McCain and Obama) , but that he will always (and very successfully) fight the corporate Empire on all fronts --- economic and political to save our democratic self-government of, by and for all free men against the scourge of corporate Empire.

"Systematic dismantling of corporate domination by expanding public financing of elections, extending constitutional protections to people, not corporations."

Has a nice ring to it!

Nader isn't running as an "independent". His party is "The Peace Party", at least that is what it says here in Oregon.

I'm voting for Nader!

Too bad CD waited till the final weeks to allow him to be read here.

I do not blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's defeat in 2000. If it had been a fair election, Gore would have won it on his own. However, I did think that when coming down to the wire, recognizing that he had no chance of winning, he had released his supporters to vote for Gore, with the urging that they still stay involved and hold Gore and Congress' feet to the fire on their issues, would have best served everyone, including Mr. Nader and the progressive cause.

Anyone claiming that the Democratic Party, though far from perfect, has not undergone a change, especially over the past year, due to the massive involvement of progressives, are either not paying attention, or just refuse to recognize it because it does not fit their agenda. I read postings from Nader supporters that are basically no different in attitude than are those of McCain/Palin supporters.

You seem to missing a very critical component of this particular election. We are out of time. We do not have the luxury of time to build a progressive party capable of winning enough positions in order to "run" the country. This is the best shot that we have, or may ever have.

If we fail this time, you should write a letter of apology to your children, grandchildren, etc. I suggest that you start now, as it will be a very long letter.