SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
rocky anderson
Hillary's Haughty Hyperbole!
Last Sunday's New York Times Book Review section featured a one page interview with Hillary Clinton, author of the just released Hard Choices which brought her a $14 million advance from Viacom's Simon and Schuster.
My first reaction was "Can anybody believe this?" I'm referring to the replies by Mrs. Clinton to questions about her book reading habits which turn out to be prodigious. How can such a super-busy person have the time to absorb such a staggering load of diverse books?
Jun 19, 2014
Last Sunday's New York Times Book Review section featured a one page interview with Hillary Clinton, author of the just released Hard Choices which brought her a $14 million advance from Viacom's Simon and Schuster.
My first reaction was "Can anybody believe this?" I'm referring to the replies by Mrs. Clinton to questions about her book reading habits which turn out to be prodigious. How can such a super-busy person have the time to absorb such a staggering load of diverse books?
The Times sends questions in advance to the person that they are going to interview each week. This gives the person being interviewed enough time to think about their favorite books and be precise about titles. The titles Hillary said she is reading could have been poll-tested for the 2016 presidential race.
First Hillary declared that she is absorbing three books at one time, which she explained are among the "pile of books stacked on my night stand that I'm reading." They included Mom & Me & Mom by the late Maya Angelou.
To the question, "What's the last truly great book you read?" She listed not one, but four of them: The Hare With Amber Eyes by Edmund de Waal, The Signature of All Things by Elizabeth Gilbert, Citizens of London by Lynne Olson and A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth.
Revving up, she took on with gusto the question "Who are your favorite contemporary writers," including "any writers whose books you automatically read when they come out?" She replied that she "automatically" reads "anything by Laura Hillenbrand, Walter Isaacson, Barbara Kingsolver, John le Carre, John Grisham, Hilary Mantel, Toni Morrison, Anna Quindlen and Alice Walker," plus "the latest installments from Alex Berenson, Linda Fairstein, Sue Grafton, Donna Leon, Katherine Hall Page, Louise Penny, Daniel Silva, Alexander McCall Smith, Charles Todd and Jacqueline Winspear."
Whew! That's not all of her responses. I have read some of this popular New York Times column's interviews over the years, many with professional authors, fiction and non-fiction, and not one replied with such an oceanic immersion, even though many of these authors regularly read many books for their craft.
The former First Lady explained that she finds time to indulge in "guilty pleasures and useful time fillers," by reading "cooking, decorating, diet/self-help and gardening books." Time fillers? For one of the busiest people on Earth? Has Hillary discovered the 72 hour day?
It gets better, when asked her opinion on the best books about Washington, DC to recommend, she chose Our Divided Political Heart by E.J. Dionne Jr., who "shows how most everybody has some conservative and liberal impulses, but just as individuals have to reconcile them within ourselves, so does our political system if we expect to function productively."
To the question "Is there one book you wish all students would read," Hillary could not hold back providing three: Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, Out of Africa by Isak Dinesen, and Schindler's List by Thomas Keneally.
As for the "one book that made you who you are today," Hillary replied, as she does often, that it was the Bible, which she elaborates "was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking." Which parts of the Bible remain unknown, but presumably she has read the wide range of choices including the parts about "an eye for an eye," "turning the other cheek," and "the golden rule."
More insights into her eclectic interests came from responses to the question "which books might we be surprised to find on your shelves?" "You might be surprised," she admitted, "to see memoirs by Republicans such as Decision Points by President George W. Bush" (whose criminal Iraq War she voted for), "and Faith of my Fathers by Senator John McCain" chief sabre-rattler in the Senate.
Perfecto! With this interview Hillary has used her literary interests to pander to homemakers, ethnic groups, poets, lovers of fiction, adversaries, hard-line Republican leaders in Congress, religious groups and the swooning credulous.
Why is Hillary Clinton unable to resist straining our credulity?
A few days earlier, Hillary told Diane Sawyer of ABC News that she and Bill left the White House "dead broke." This comment prompted the press to report on their combined $23 million book contracts, ample Presidential pension, $200,000 a speech for Bill and other rewards provided to them by friends.
Sure politicians are calculating, even cunning. Those are occupational traits. Maybe Hillary thinks she can push the envelope into prevarication and distortion with impunity. After all, as a Wall Street corporatist and a war-mongering militarist, she has gotten away with much worse.
Rocky Anderson, the former twice-elected mayor of Salt Lake City, cited polls and examples in his presentation to the mass-media in which he both addressed Clinton's "recognized reputation for lying, distorting and evading," and suggested important questions that they may wish to ask Hillary on her North-American book tour.
One such episode involved her trip to Bosnia as First Lady in 1996. By her account she landed under sniper fire and had to run "with our heads down to get into the vehicles." This narrative was contradicted by the videos and the report from accompanying CBS reporter, Sharyl Attkisson. The video shows Clinton and daughter Chelsea, in Attkisson's words "speaking with young people at the airport, taking their time and not rushing, heads down or otherwise, to any vehicles." For the full list of Anderson's basic questions, go to the Facebook group: Progressives Opposed to a Clinton Dynasty.
On June 10, 2014 the lines of people seeking autographed copies of Hard Choices started lining up at 3am in front of the Barnes & Noble bookstore at Union Square in New York City, the launch of Hillary's book tour. The New York Times reported that "dozens of Secret Service agents" were establishing orderly processions by the customers. Retired presidents and their families are given a permanent, small Secret Service detail. A private citizen doesn't have "dozens of Secret Service agents" to help sell her books. The reporters didn't push this subject. It is a small wonder that Hillary's march to the White House is being described as "a coronation."
With so many curtseying instead of inquiring, how can her path be anything but Queenly?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Our Readers: Obama 74%, Jill Stein 18%
Highlights of our 2012 Readers' Survey
Nov 05, 2012
The Common Dreams 2012 Reader Survey results are in.
Between Nov. 1st and 12PM EST Monday, 15,767 of our readers weighed in on a wide variety of issues - including who they would vote for for US President Tuesday.
- 74% of our readers will vote for President Obama with the Green Party's Jill Stein at 18% and the Justice Party's Rocky Anderson at 2%. Romney will get the votes of 1%.
- The older you are, the more likely you support the Obama ticket. The younger you are, the more likely you support 3rd party candidates.
- Our readers overwhelmingly support the progressive position on key ballot issues being voted on in various states on November 6
- 57% of our readers have been reading Common Dreams for over 5 years.
- 82% of our readers use Facebook; 18% do not. 43% use Twitter; 57% do not.
- 73% of our readers read the comments below articles; 27% do not. But, only 12% have commented themselves; 88% have not.
- 87% of our readers are 51 years old or older.
- 56% of our readers either have graduate degrees or have attended graduate school.
* * *
The Presidential results:
| Stewart Alexander/Alejandro Mendoza Socialist Party | 0.2% |
| Rocky Anderson/Luis J. Rodriguez Justice Party | 2.2% |
| Virgil Goode/Jim Clymer Constitution Party | 0.1% |
| Gary Johnson/Jim Gray Libertarian Party | 1.3% |
| Barack Obama/Joe Biden Democratic Party | 73.8% |
| Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan Republican Party | 1.2% |
| Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala Green Party | 18.0% |
| None of the above/Write-in | 3.1% |
The results by age group show a sharp difference. Obama has the support of 80% of those 67 years old and older; Jill Stein comes in first among readers between the ages of 21-35:
| Candidates | 21-35 | 36-50 | 51-65 | 66-79 | 80+ | Total |
| Rocky Anderson/Luis J. Rodriguez Justice Party | 8.5% | 1.9% | 2.2% | 1.8% | 2.0% | 2.2% |
| Barack Obama/Joe Biden Democratic Party | 37.7% | 62.4% | 73.0% | 78.8% | 80.8% | 73.8% |
| Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala Green Party | 44.3% | 25.8% | 18.3% | 14.8% | 12.2% | 18.0% |
On the Ballot issues facing voters around the country on Election Day, readers overwhelmingly supported the progressive positions:
| YES | NO | UNDECIDED | |
| California's Prop 37: Label GMO Foods | 93.5% | 2.8% | 3.6% |
| YES | NO | UNDECIDED | |
| Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage | 91.2% | 4.3% | 4.5% |
| BOTH YES | MEDICAL ONLY | BOTH NO | UNDECIDED | |
| Legalize Marijuana/Legalize Medical Marijuana | 79.7% | 14.0% | 1.9% | 4.4% |
| YES | NO | UNDECIDED | |
| Weaken Reproductive Rights | 3.7% | 92.8% | 3.5% |
How our readers self-identify on the political spectrum:
| Radical | 8.1% |
| Progressive | 48.0% |
| Liberal | 25.0% |
| Moderate | 4.5% |
| Conservative | 1.1% |
| Other | 13.3% |
# # #
Keep ReadingShow Less
Third Party Candidates Add Fresh Perspective to Debates
Largely ignored by US cable news, int'l networks give outsiders platform
Oct 24, 2012
Eclipsed by the wake of the final presidential debate between Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, four third-party candidates took the stage last night in Chicago: Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, Jill Stein of the Green Party, Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party and Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party.
In an event sponsored by the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, arguably the most well-known person present was moderator Larry King.
Though they represented the poles of the political spectrum, the four nominees agreed on a number of issues unheard of in the previous debates. The ineffectiveness of the War on Drugs and the imperative to cut defense spending were echoed across the board.
The Commission on Presidential Debates excludes parties with less than 15 percent support nationwide. So far, the only candidate who has met that criteria is billionaire Ross Perot, who debated Bill Clinton and George H W Bush in 1992.
A second third-party debate will be held on October 30. Tuesday's debate was broadcasted by Al Jazeera and Russia Today--which can be viewed below--but largely ignored by all major US cable news networks.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What a Difference Other Candidates Make
Haven't read Lee Fang's excellent expose on the lobbyists controlling the Presidential Debate Committee? You should. Then imagine what these debates would be like if things were very different. For one thing, there might be more parties' candidates included.
Oct 23, 2012
Haven't read Lee Fang's excellent expose on the lobbyists controlling the Presidential Debate Committee? You should. Then imagine what these debates would be like if things were very different. For one thing, there might be more parties' candidates included.
Thanks to Democracy Now, Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party have been able to take part in three virtually-expanded debates. On no occasion was the contrast greater than in the foreign policy debate Tuesday night. While the word clouds over the Obama/Romney debate screamed "crippling, kill, world leader, Israel," the debate over at Democracy Now kept coming back to international law, climate change, morality and human rights.
Take the first segment. To Bob Schieffer's question about Libya, terrorism and US policy in the Middle East, Mitt Romney applauded the president: "We're going to have to recognize that we have to do as the president has done." The president appreciated the recognition. "I'm glad that you agree that we have been successful in going after al-Qaeda."
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, on the other hand, had this to say:
"It's very clear that there is blowback going on now across the Middle East, not only the unrest directed at the Libyan embassy, likewise at the embassies really across the Middle East, including in Egypt. We are seeing in Afghanistan our soldiers are being shot at by the police forces that they are supposed to be training in Afghanistan. We're seeing in Pakistan that 75 percent of Pakistanis actually identify the United States now as their enemy, not as their supporter or their ally. And, you know, in many ways, we're seeing a very ill-conceived, irresponsible and immoral war policy come back to haunt us, where United States foreign policies have been based, unfortunately, on brute military force and wars for oil."
Rocky Anderson, presidential candidate of the Justice Party added this:
"We're like the bully that never got counseling, and we keep wondering, why don't they like us? We invaded Iraq and occupied that country. It was completely illegal. Two United Nations secretaries-general declared that it was illegal. It was a war of aggression, and it was all done on a pack of lies. Now, we aggravate the situation by keeping bases in so many other nations, including Saudi Arabia, bolstering these tyrants and, at the same time, engaging in direct, unmanned drone strikes in at least four sovereign nations, killing, in the process, hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent men, women and children. That is the policy failure: our belligerence, our efforts to control, to dominate and to make certain that we will always have that control over the resources in these nations. That's what this is all about..."
Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson declined to take part.
For democracy to flourish, we need not only a corproate-free debate committee, we need a way to break through the monopoly of the two party system. That problem's only gotten harder as the wealth gap has grown and the cost of competing for office in this country has sky-rocketed. What's the number one security threat facing American democracy? If last night's debate is anything to go by, it's the narrow range of policy alternatives on basic issues brought to us by big money in poliitcs.
For more on why our election system needs radical change, check out these commentaries from pro-democracy activists James Rucker co-founder of Color of Change and the New Organizing Institute's Ashindi Maxton. The Why We Care series continues this week with John Nichols & Robert McChesney and Bob Edgar of Common Cause.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Binders Full of Women, and Two Women Bound
You may have noticed that the Green Party presidential candidate, Dr. Jill Stein, was absent from the "town hall" presidential debate at Hofstra University the other night. That's because she was shackled to a chair in a nearby New York police facility, along with her running mate, Green Party vice president nominee Cheri Honkala. Their crime: attempting to get to the debate so Stein could participate in it.
Oct 18, 2012
You may have noticed that the Green Party presidential candidate, Dr. Jill Stein, was absent from the "town hall" presidential debate at Hofstra University the other night. That's because she was shackled to a chair in a nearby New York police facility, along with her running mate, Green Party vice president nominee Cheri Honkala. Their crime: attempting to get to the debate so Stein could participate in it. While Mitt Romney uttered the now-famous line that he was given "whole binders full of women" while seeking staff as newly-elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002, the real binders were handcuffs used to shackle these two women, who are mothers, activists and the Green Party's presidential ticket for 2012.
I interviewed Stein the day after the debate, after their imprisonment (which ended, not surprisingly, not long after the debate ended). She told me: "We are on the ballot for 85 percent of voters. Americans deserve to know what their choices are. The police said they were only doing job. I said, 'This is about everyone's jobs, whether we can afford health care, whether students will be indentured.' There are critical issues left out of the debate. Ninety million voters are predicted to stay home and vote with their feet that neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney represent them. That's twice as many voters than expected for either of them."
Even if Stein and Honkala hadn't been hauled off a public street and handcuffed to those chairs for eight hours, Stein's exclusion from the debate was certain. The debates are very closely controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which excludes third-party candidates, among other things. George Farah is the founder and executive director of Open Debates, and author of "No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates." Farah told me on the morning of the Hofstra debate about how the CPD gained control over the debates from the nonpartisan League of Women Voters: "We have a private corporation that was created by the Republican and Democratic parties called the Commission on Presidential Debates. It seized control of the presidential debates precisely because the League was independent, precisely because this women's organization had the guts to stand up to the candidates that the major parties had nominated."
The League of Women Voters allowed third-party candidate John B. Anderson to participate in a presidential debate in 1980, and in the decade that followed, the two major parties, Republican and Democrat, sparred with the League. In 1988, the parties tried to force the League into a contract detailing how the debates would be run. Farah explained: "It talked about who could be in the audience and how the format would be structured, but the League found that kind of lack of transparency and that kind of candidate control to be fundamentally outrageous and antithetical to our democratic process. They released the contract and stated they refuse to be an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people and refuse to implement it."
Farah said that early contract was "tame" compared with the binding contract, leaked to Time magazine this week, that governed the so-called town hall, moderated by CNN's Candy Crowley. The 21-page "Memorandum of Understanding" includes a reference to their standards for candidate eligibility to participate. The CPD requires that a candidate have support from "at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations." This is a classic Catch-22. In order to debate, you must have broad support. In order to earn public support, candidates without huge campaign war chests need the access that the televised debates offer. So the Democrats and Republicans control the debates, and limit the public's access to alternative views.
If the Green Party's nominee, Jill Stein, had been allowed to debate, what might the public have heard? To find out, our "Democracy Now!" news hour went ahead and invited major third-party candidates to participate in the debate, virtually, the morning after. In addition to Stein, we had Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party and Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party (Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson declined).
Instead of the Obama/Romney debate, where each attempted to trumpet his superior commitment to fossil-fuel extraction, the public would have heard Jill Stein say, "We support a Green New Deal, which will put everyone back to work, at the same time that it puts a halt to climate change and it makes wars for oil obsolete." Climate change is simply not discussed in these debates.
That's just one example. Imagine if we had a functional electoral system, with genuine, vigorous, representative debates. Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala are on the ballot in 38 states, and available as write-ins for the rest. Rocky Anderson, with his new Justice Party, is on in 15 states. Now that the candidates have been unshackled, it's time to unshackle the debates.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Listen to Third-Party Candidates: This is What Democracy Sounds Like
Oct 06, 2012
A few miles south of the campus arena in the Mile High City where Barack Obama and Mitt Romney met in their first debate, "Democracy Now!" news hour broke the sound barrier by expanding their gated debate to include two third-party presidential candidates. Dr. Jill Stein, of the Green Party, and Rocky Anderson, of the Justice Party, responded to the same questions put to the major-party candidates, in real time, from their own podiums a little ways down the road. The goal was to open the forum, to bring out voices that are ignored or marginalized by the mainstream media. (Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson was also invited to participate, but declined.)
President Obama made a good point in late 2011, when he told "60 Minutes," "Don't judge me against the Almighty; judge me against the alternative." If only the public had a full range of alternatives against which to judge. In fact, most people do. They just don't know it. The reason they don't know it is because the media don't report on third-party politics or campaigns. These campaigns also lack the funds to purchase television airtime, or to compete against the Democratic and Republican campaign fundraising juggernauts. This leads to less diversity of voices, and far fewer alternatives on the ballot.
It hasn't always been this way. In 1980, the League of Women Voters ran the debates, and independent presidential candidate John B. Anderson was allowed to participate (President Jimmy Carter opposed his participation and boycotted the event). In 1992, billionaire Ross Perot used his personal funds to overcome the media blockade of his presidential campaign. His successful debate performance temporarily propelled him ahead of both Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush in the polls.
Since then, no third-party candidate has been allowed into the presidential debates. The debates are run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization described by George Farah, founder and executive director of Open Debates, as "a private corporation financed by Anheuser-Busch and other major companies, that was created by the Republican and Democratic parties to seize control of the presidential debates from the League of Women Voters."
Farah told me that in 1988, "you have the Michael Dukakis and the George Bush campaigns drafting the first-ever 12-page secret debate contract. They gave it to the League of Women Voters and said please implement this. The league said, Are you kidding me? We are not going to implement a secret contract that dictates the terms of the format. Instead, they release the contract to the public and they held a press conference accusing the candidates of 'perpetrating a fraud on the American people' and refusing to be 'an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people.' "
The Democratic and Republican parties wrested control of the debates from the League of Women Voters, and have controlled them since.
"Democracy Now!" brought Stein and Anderson to a television studio in Littleton. After each response from President Obama and Mitt Romney to moderator Jim Lehrer's questions, we paused the tape, allowing Stein and Anderson to answer as well. What they said stood in stark contrast to the barbs traded inside the heavily secured debate arena.
For example, on health care, former Salt Lake City Mayor Anderson said: "We're talking here about Obamacare and Romneycare. I would call it insurance companycare because they're the ones who wrote it. They joined up with a very conservative foundation years ago to develop this plan, to make the American people buy this perverse product."
The Green Party's Stein, a medical doctor from Massachusetts, said: "Under the Obama White House, which basically codified the violations of George Bush, the attacks on our privacy rights, on First Amendment rights, the criminalization of the right to protest ... things are not working under Democrats, under Republicans alike. We need a government that is of, by, and for the people, not sponsored and working for big money."
Robust debate on the critical issues of the day only strengthens democracy. As the Democrats and Republicans raise and spend unprecedented sums of campaign cash, "Democracy Now!" will continue to make additional voices heard. This is what democracy sounds like. Open the debates.
Keep ReadingShow Less
More Open Debates Would Make for Better Debates
These Debates Could Use Some Jill Stein and Gary Johnson
Oct 03, 2012
The United States does not have presidential debates in any realistic sense of the word.
It holds quadrennial joint appearances by major-party candidates who have been schooled in the art of saying little of consequence in the most absurdly aggressive way. And Americans will be served a full helping this evening, as the travesty that the Commission on Presidential Debates foists on the country every four years begins its latest run.
Much will be said on stage, much more by the punditocracy.
But the likelihood that it will matter is slimmer now than ever. That is because presidential debates have become the political equivalent of a classic rock radio station. You'll hear all the hits, and maybe even a few obscure tracks that you'd almost forgotten. But the whole point of the Barack Obama's appearance will be to say nothing that harms himself and everything that harms Mitt Romney, just as the whole point of Romney's appearance will be to say nothing that harms himself and everything that harms Obama.
Neither man will leave his comfort zone. Neither will jump off the narrow track on which this year's campaign has been running. The only theater will be provided by a gaffe, and in fairness Mitt Romney has proven to be more adept than any figure since Chevy Chase (playing Gerald Ford) in that department.
But America deserves better than drinking games built around the wait for Mitt to be Mitt.
What would make the debates better?
More candidates.
In most developed nation--from Canada to Britain to Australia to France--debates are multi-candidate, multi-party affairs. It is not uncommon for five, six, even seven candidates to take the stage. Those countries do not just survive the clashes, they thrive--with higher levels of political engagement than the United States has seen in decades.
Only the most crudely authoritarian states erect the sort of barriers that the United States maintains to entry into the debates by so-called "minor-party" candidates.
And why?
The fool's argument against expanding the number of contenders is that debates involving more than the nominees of the two big parties--which, conveniently, control the access to the debates through their joint Commission on Presidential Debates--is that it would somehow confuse the electorate. As if Americans aren't quite as sharp as the French.
Adding more candidates would not create confusion. It would add clarity.
Imagine if Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein joined Obama and Romney for this year's debates. Instead of having to listen to a pair of adult men trying to distinguish between Obamacare and Romneycare, we could hear a working physician explain why a "Medicare for All" program would be dramatically more efficient, economical and humane than what either the president or his Republican challenger has proposed.
Imagine if Libertarian Gary Johnson could respond to the predictably empty wrangling about whether America is "broke"--as opposed to suffering from broken budget priorities. Johnson would propose bringing American troops and resources home from policing the world's trouble spots, a wholly sensible fix that would make the United States safer, richer and a more popular.
Imagine if Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode--who once talked about denying a US House seat to Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, because Ellison clutched a Koran rather than a Bible when he was sworn in--opened up a real discussion about the relationship between church and state. Instead of dancing around the issue, as they both do, Obama and Romney would be forced to get specific about how seriously they take the promise of Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation." They might even call Goode out, sending a message that America needs to hear. from the leaders of both major parties.
By the standards of most countries, Stein, Johnson and Goode could qualify to join national debates. Johnson and Stein have secured places on enough state ballots to win the electoral votes needed to assume the presidency. Goode is already on twenty-six ballots and could yet use legal challenges (and certified write-in campaigns) to be positioned to get on enough additional ballots to win an Electoral College majority. (Other candidates, including former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, whose mounting an intellectually rich and radical run on the Justice Party line, have struggled to get on enough ballots to get near making the Electoral College cut. Anderson will, however, join Stein in a "Debate Talkback" tonight, which will be moderated by Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman.)
There's not much chance that any of the three will be elected. But at this point, there's not as much chance as there once was that Romney will be elected. It would be absurd to disqualify Romney on the grounds that he's falling behind in the polls, just as it is absurd to disqualify candidates who are on the ballot but have not gotten the exposure that might run their numbers up.
(Notably, Goode is polling well enough inVirginia to be considered a serious threat by the Romney camp, which spent months trying to keep him off that state's ballot. When he finally got on, Goode said: "Candidate Romney, before he continues campaigning, should read the First Amendment about free speech and the right to petition. They're afraid true conservatives will vote for me.")
The value of adding more candidates to the debates is in the quality and diversity of ideas they bring, and in the prospect that they might force the candidates to address--perhaps even embrace--those ideas. This year, in France, Left Front candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon raised the issue of taxing speculators in that country's presidential race. Melenchon only won about 12 percent of the vote, but by the campaign was done both the sitting president, conservative Nicolas Sarkozy, and the man who beat him, Socialist Francois Hollande, were proposing their own variations on the Robin Hood Tax.
Could Stein, Johnson or Goode add as much to the American debate as an experienced campaigner like France's Melenchon? A credible case can be made for each of them. Johnson's a former Republican governor of New Mexico who debated Romney during last year's Republican nomination fight. Goode was a Virginia legislator and member of Congress, serving initially as a Democrat, then as a Republican. Stein, as the Green nominee for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, debated Romney several times, with major media outlets declaring her the winner.
So why not let them in? Oh, right, the rules. But the rules that have been adopted by the Commission on Presidential Debates are based on a deal cut by Democratic and Republican powerbrokers. Either major-party candidate could today call for opening up the debates, and the other would have a hard time keeping them closed.
Unfortunately, neither will opt for openness. Why? Because neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney is all that excited about getting dragged into a real debate. And, thanks to the way in which the big parties have rigged the process, neither Obama nor Romney will have to worry about any interesting questions, unexpected issues or pointed challenges interrupting their joint appearance.
Save
Keep ReadingShow Less
Debate Night: Hearing the Voices Shut Out by Debate Commission
Third Party Candidates to Join in Real Time on Live Coverage of First Presidential Debate
Oct 03, 2012
While corporate media will be airing President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the first presidential debate in Denver Wednesday night, Democracy Now! will be highlighting presidential contenders whose voices have been shut out: Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. Common Dreams will be streaming their live coverage tonight from 8:30 to 11:30 p.m. ET when they will pause after questions to include equal time responses absent from the corporate-sponsored debate.
Tune in to this page at 8:30 p.m. ET...
* * *
* * *
* * *
# # #
Keep ReadingShow Less
Corporate Power on Full Display at Dem and GOP Conventions
In the past week, we have been witness to the spectacle of the Republican and Democratic national conventions, events where both parties leave no stone unturned in their attempts to gain the confidence of voting Americans. Perhaps the biggest and best opportunity during presidential campaigns for the parties to differentiate themselves from each other, but the similarities between the two conventions cannot be overlooked.
Sep 06, 2012
In the past week, we have been witness to the spectacle of the Republican and Democratic national conventions, events where both parties leave no stone unturned in their attempts to gain the confidence of voting Americans. Perhaps the biggest and best opportunity during presidential campaigns for the parties to differentiate themselves from each other, but the similarities between the two conventions cannot be overlooked.
Beyond the highly orchestrated ceremony, canned speeches, and attempts to show off their commitments to the grassroots and diversity, both parties have clearly spent huge sums to convince Americans that a vote for the other party's candidates is a vote for the full-blown destruction of our American culture.
Long ago both parties abandoned their grassroots and the attendant disruptions that made conventions exciting and interesting to watch. Today's national delegates, comprised of elected officials and the Party faithful, are tasked with formalizing the selection of nominees for president and vice president, which is already well-decided long before the conventions take place. Non-committed delegates are pressured to vote the "right" way for the sake of party unity, and the Party's platform, which is largely ignored by its elected officials and candidates, is finalized. There is no spontaneity; both are equally boring.
Dissident voices are squelched. Ron Paul and his Libertarian Republican supporters were dissed at their convention where an unscripted moment of actual rebellion (and good TV) broke out on the floor. While many may disagree with their positions, not only do Libertarian Republicans remain true to their political principles, they have remained supporters of the Party. It is easy to understand their reaction at the convention, and the potential for them to abandon Romney for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
While there is little controversy within the Democratic Party this year, the party is on the same trajectory with their progressive wing, as demonstrated at their 2004 convention in Boston where party bosses subjected Kucinich delegates to vigorous verbal arm-twisting in an attempt to show unanimous solidarity for Kerry.
By virtue of their wealth, titans of industry have always had more voice in our elections than the average individual.
Unable to secure a presence through the regular Machiavellian channels of party participation, Progressive Democrats of America has sponsored a shadow convention for the past two national conventions, after their organizing convention in Boston during the Democratic convention in 2004. One can only wonder how many progressive Democratic voters will abandon Obama for Green Party candidate Jill Stein or the newly forming Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson.
But, the most disturbing similarity between the two is direct corporate sponsorship, and the more obscure soft corporate funding through their respective host committees. While the GOP Convention website proudly boasts their corporate sponsors on their homepage, the Democrats have also accepted corporate funding while trying to maintain the sheen of grassroots funding. Corporate funders for the GOP include Google, Microsoft, Wellcare, Walmart, Chevron and an assortment of energy companies among others. Democratic sponsors include AT&T, Bank of America, Duke Energy, Time Warner Cable, UnitedHealth Group, Piedmont Natural Gas, and US Airways. Coca Cola and Wells Fargo have covered their bets by sponsoring both conventions.
Corporate tentacles are more entwined in our political process than simply making the massive ad buys paid for by undisclosed sources sanctioned by the Citizens United ruling. Corporate sponsorship of the Republican and Democratic conventions has long been policy, despite attempts to curb the practice due to the clear conflict of interest. This year's sponsors come from the healthcare, communications, oil, gas and energy, banking, automotive and housing industries - all of which have benefited from recent legislation under both Democratic and Republican administrations and are likely in line to receive additional benefits in the next administration, whichever party comes to power.
We cannot ignore the connections that wealthy patrons and their corporations have on our political process and who gets elected in this country. By virtue of their wealth, titans of industry have always had more voice in our elections than the average individual. Their influence has led to the election of politicians who support their corporate worldview and appoint judges.
Over time, the doctrine of corporate personhood became a reality as corporations - artificial entities created by government - gained inherent human rights through legislation and the courts. Because the Supreme Court decided in Buckley v. Valeo that money is speech and in prior cases that a corporation is a person, every attempt made by government to control money in politics has resulted in loopholes through which obscene amounts of money pours.
For over a decade, proponents of small "d" democracy have been working to limit the power of corporations. Immediately following the Citizens United decision, they came together to form the Move to Amend Coalition. Recognizing that corporations can and have benefited society in many ways, have an important role in a vibrant economy, and are entitled to privileges to protect themselves, Move to Amend is calling for a Constitutional amendment which clearly states that corporations are not people, are not entitled to unalienable human rights, that money is not speech and can be regulated in campaigns.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Change We Can Believe In
An Open Letter to Barack Obama
Jul 31, 2008
July 30, 2008
Dear Senator Obama,
We write to congratulate you on the tremendous achievements of your campaign for the presidency of the United States.
Your candidacy has inspired a wave of political enthusiasm like nothing seen in this country for decades. In your speeches, you have sketched out a vision of a better future--in which the United States sheds its warlike stance around the globe and focuses on diplomacy abroad and greater equality and freedom for its citizens at home--that has thrilled voters across the political spectrum. Hundreds of thousands of young people have entered the political process for the first time, African-American voters have rallied behind you, and many of those alienated from politics-as-usual have been re-engaged.
You stand today at the head of a movement that believes deeply in the change you have claimed as the mantle of your campaign. The millions who attend your rallies, donate to your campaign and visit your website are a powerful testament to this new movement's energy and passion.
This movement is vital for two reasons: First, it will help assure your victory against John McCain in November. The long night of greed and military adventurism under the Bush Administration, which a McCain administration would continue, cannot be brought to an end a day too soon. An enthusiastic corps of volunteers and organizers will ensure that voters turn out to close the book on the Bush era on election day. Second, having helped bring you the White House, the support of this movement will make possible the changes that have been the platform of your campaign. Only a grassroots base as broad and as energized as the one that is behind you can counteract the forces of money and established power that are a dead weight on those seeking real change in American politics.
We urge you, then, to listen to the voices of the people who can lift you to the presidency and beyond.
Since your historic victory in the primary, there have been troubling signs that you are moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported your campaign, toward a more cautious and centrist stance--including, most notably, your vote for the FISA legislation granting telecom companies immunity from prosecution for illegal wiretapping, which angered and dismayed so many of your supporters.
We recognize that compromise is necessary in any democracy. We understand that the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense. But retreating from the stands that have been the signature of your campaign will weaken the movement whose vigorous backing you need in order to win and then deliver the change you have promised.
Here are key positions you have embraced that we believe are essential to sustaining this movement:
- Withdrawal from Iraq on a fixed timetable.
- A response to the current economic crisis that reduces the gap between the rich and the rest of us through a more progressive financial and welfare system; public investment to create jobs and repair the country's collapsing infrastructure; fair trade policies; restoration of the freedom to organize unions; and meaningful government enforcement of labor laws and regulation of industry.
- Universal healthcare.
- An environmental policy that transforms the economy by shifting billions of dollars from the consumption of fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, creating millions of green jobs.
- An end to the regime of torture, abuse of civil liberties and unchecked executive power that has flourished in the Bush era.
- A commitment to the rights of women, including the right to choose abortion and improved access to abortion and reproductive health services.
- A commitment to improving conditions in urban communities and ending racial inequality, including disparities in education through reform of the No Child Left Behind Act and other measures.
- An immigration system that treats humanely those attempting to enter the country and provides a path to citizenship for those already here.
- Reform of the drug laws that incarcerate hundreds of thousands who need help, not jail.
- Reform of the political process that reduces the influence of money and corporate lobbyists and amplifies the voices of ordinary people.
These are the changes we can believe in. In other areas--such as the use of residual forces and mercenary troops in Iraq, the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan, the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the death penalty--your stated positions have consistently varied from the positions held by many of us, the "friends on the left" you addressed in recent remarks. If you win in November, we will work to support your stands when we agree with you and to challenge them when we don't. We look forward to an ongoing and constructive dialogue with you when you are elected President.
Stand firm on the principles you have so compellingly articulated, and you may succeed in bringing this country the change you've encouraged us to believe is possible.
Here is a list of early signatories to this open letter:
Rocky Anderson
Moustafa Bayoumi
Norman Birnbaum Professor Emeritus Georgetown University Law Center
Tim Carpenter Progressive Democrats of America
John Cavanaugh, director Institute for Policy Studies
Chuck Collins
Phil Donahue
Barbara Ehrenreich
Tom Engelhardt Tomdispatch.com
Jodie Evans, co-f0under CODEPINK: Women for Peace
Thomas Ferguson
Bill Fletcher Jr., executive editor, BlackCommentator.com
Eric Foner
Milton Glaser
Robert Greenwald
William Greider
Jane Hamsher
Christopher Hayes
Richard Kim
Stuart Klawans
Walter Mosley
Richard Parker, president Americans for Democratic Action
Gary Phillips Writer and activist
Jon Pincus achangeiscoming.net and member of Get FISA Right
Chip Pitts
Frances Piven
Elizabeth Pochoda
Katha Pollitt
Marcus Raskin
Betsy Reed
Bob Scheer
Herman Schwartz
Jonathan Schell
Gene Seymour
David Sirota
Norman Solomon Author and Obama delegate to Democratic National Convention
Mike Stark
Jean Stein
Matt Stoller
Jonathan Tasini
Studs Terkel
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Gore Vidal
David Weir
Affiliations have been added when requested by the signatory.
Add your name to the Open Letter calling on Barack Obama to stand firm on the principles he so compellingly articulated in the primary campaign.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy