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
Why I'm Running
Oct 29, 2000
To the Editor:
You discredit our democracy by editorializing on Oct. 26 that the limited ground covered by the Gore and Bush candidacies should define political competition in this election. Millions of voters, when they contrast actual records to rhetoric, find the two major-party candidates similar on excessive corporate power over our government.
George W. Bush has a dismal record on the environment, health care and judicial rights. Al Gore has furthered big-business control in America, letting corporations decide whether we eat genetically engineered food, letting big agribusiness destroy family farms, and supporting concentration in the financial, telecommunications, cable and health care industries. Mr. Gore's actual record on many environmental issues, in one industry after another, has been one of surrender.
Similarities between these two candidates abound. They take millions in corporate campaign cash (we don't -- practicing what we preach). They agree on the death penalty, on no universal health care coverage now, on more military spending, on the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement, on corporate welfare and on slashing the social safety net. They take no stand on repealing anti-union labor laws that keep many millions of workers earning nonliving wages or on fighting corporate crime.
My candidacy not only provides the sole competition on these issues, but also prevents Mr. Gore from cornering votes on the environment simply by not being as bad as Mr. Bush.
You miss the critical point: we seek long-term political reform through a growing party that pushes the two parties toward reforms that you have espoused over the years, thus far in vain.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The New York Times Company
Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and the author of "The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future" (2012). His new book is, "Wrecking America: How Trump's Lies and Lawbreaking Betray All" (2020, co-authored with Mark Green).
To the Editor:
You discredit our democracy by editorializing on Oct. 26 that the limited ground covered by the Gore and Bush candidacies should define political competition in this election. Millions of voters, when they contrast actual records to rhetoric, find the two major-party candidates similar on excessive corporate power over our government.
George W. Bush has a dismal record on the environment, health care and judicial rights. Al Gore has furthered big-business control in America, letting corporations decide whether we eat genetically engineered food, letting big agribusiness destroy family farms, and supporting concentration in the financial, telecommunications, cable and health care industries. Mr. Gore's actual record on many environmental issues, in one industry after another, has been one of surrender.
Similarities between these two candidates abound. They take millions in corporate campaign cash (we don't -- practicing what we preach). They agree on the death penalty, on no universal health care coverage now, on more military spending, on the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement, on corporate welfare and on slashing the social safety net. They take no stand on repealing anti-union labor laws that keep many millions of workers earning nonliving wages or on fighting corporate crime.
My candidacy not only provides the sole competition on these issues, but also prevents Mr. Gore from cornering votes on the environment simply by not being as bad as Mr. Bush.
You miss the critical point: we seek long-term political reform through a growing party that pushes the two parties toward reforms that you have espoused over the years, thus far in vain.
Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and the author of "The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future" (2012). His new book is, "Wrecking America: How Trump's Lies and Lawbreaking Betray All" (2020, co-authored with Mark Green).
To the Editor:
You discredit our democracy by editorializing on Oct. 26 that the limited ground covered by the Gore and Bush candidacies should define political competition in this election. Millions of voters, when they contrast actual records to rhetoric, find the two major-party candidates similar on excessive corporate power over our government.
George W. Bush has a dismal record on the environment, health care and judicial rights. Al Gore has furthered big-business control in America, letting corporations decide whether we eat genetically engineered food, letting big agribusiness destroy family farms, and supporting concentration in the financial, telecommunications, cable and health care industries. Mr. Gore's actual record on many environmental issues, in one industry after another, has been one of surrender.
Similarities between these two candidates abound. They take millions in corporate campaign cash (we don't -- practicing what we preach). They agree on the death penalty, on no universal health care coverage now, on more military spending, on the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement, on corporate welfare and on slashing the social safety net. They take no stand on repealing anti-union labor laws that keep many millions of workers earning nonliving wages or on fighting corporate crime.
My candidacy not only provides the sole competition on these issues, but also prevents Mr. Gore from cornering votes on the environment simply by not being as bad as Mr. Bush.
You miss the critical point: we seek long-term political reform through a growing party that pushes the two parties toward reforms that you have espoused over the years, thus far in vain.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.