"In the last few years, big money and the closing down of Washington against citizen groups prevent us from trying to improve our country. And I want everybody to have the right and opportunity to improve their country," he told reporters after an appearance announcing his candidacy on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Asked why he should be president, the longtime consumer advocate said, "Because I got things done." He cited a 40-year record, which he said includes saving "millions of lives," bringing about stricter protection for food and water and fighting corporate control over Washington.

[SNIP]

Calling Nader's move "very unfortunate," Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters, "I remember when he ran before. It didn't turn out very well for anybody -- especially our country."

[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

Still Smearing Ralph Nader for 2000

Strategic Voting: Canada vs. the US

Ralph Nader may run for president

He wants to run, let him run but voters are forewarned this time at the potential vote splitting.

[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Nader has a right to run but democratic voters won't want a revisit of what happened in previous elections

---

"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form."

If a Republican wins, that's terrible; if a Democrat wins, that's better. I don't see how a sane person could disagree with that.

Unlike Ralph, there's a chance voters of color would consider Cynthia.

Also unlike Ralph, there's a chance workers might too.

Ralph has the right to run, but there's really no good reason he should. He's not the best person to put the progressive case, and he will drive away more voters from third-party politics than he could ever bring in again.

Third-party efforts, in general, would be much more effective if focused on Congressional and state legislative races in the U.S.

Finally, what Ralph really should have done this year would have been to borrow the Zapatista idea of "The Other Campaign", where he wouldn't actually stand for the presidency, but would tour and hold mass rallies raising the issues the other candidates weren't raising. That would be positive. Running yet another campaign whose sole purpose is to destroy the Democratic Party serves no valid purpose.

If he wants to do it, fine, but Ralph knows in his heart that it's pointless.

And if Ralph actually goes through with it, IMHO the Democrats should adopt some his views(which they should anyway), engage his supporters, and NOT piss away a million dollars challenging his ballot lines. Any money the Dems spend on that is money spent choosing to blow the election, like in 2004.

[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Nice endorsement, LT! You'd only vote for Nader if you were sure there was no chance he'd win.

---

If there were any states where Nader was actually in contention, I'd vote for Nader. Unfortunately, the current state of US politics ensures that this is a political imposibility. So a vote for Nader is nothing more than a protest vote. In a close swing state, the decision whether to make a protest vote for Nader, and a strategic vote for the Democrats, can affect whether the Democrats or Republicans win the state. In a state that is safe for either the Democrats or the Republicans, a protest vote for Nader does not affect whether the Democrats or the Republicans carry the state.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Ralph has the right to run, but there's really no good reason he should. He's not the best person to put the progressive case, and he will drive away more voters from third-party politics than he could ever bring in again.

Third-party efforts, in general, would be much more effective if focused on Congressional and state legislative races in the U.S.

---

I totally agree that Congressional and state legislature races are where third-party efforts actually could be successful, and elect some very good candidates to office.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Finally, what Ralph really should have done this year would have been to borrow the Zapatista idea of "The Other Campaign", where he wouldn't actually stand for the presidency, but would tour and hold mass rallies raising the issues the other candidates weren't raising. That would be positive. Running yet another campaign whose sole purpose is to destroy the Democratic Party serves no valid purpose.

---

Probably the best thing that could happen in the US during the election would be for there to be a massive anti-war rally in Washington DC, organized by the ANSWER coalition. Nader would most definitely be a great speaker at such a rally, and would do far more good than Ralph actually running in the election. However, I would still vote for Ralph in the election as per the criteria I outlined in my previous posts.

[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

quote:

---

So let's get over it and try to have a diverse multiple choice, multiple party democracy the way they have in Western Europe and Canada. This bit of, of spoiler is really very astonishing. These are the two parties who've spoiled our electoral system, money, they can't even count the votes, they steal--the Republicans steal the votes, and the Democrats knock third party candidates off the ballot. That's their specialty these days.

---

quote:

---

Sixty-one percent think both major parties are failing. And, according to Frank Luntz's poll, a Republican, 80 percent would consider voting for a independent this year.

---

Hey!! He mentioned CANADA!!! WooHoooooo!!!

But seriously, it is astonishing how Obama and Clinton can talk and talk and never get into any issues. They KNOW that if they do there will be something to attack and actually talk about. Instead, they just say "I will put America on the correct path" or something like that, totally unsubstantial, avoiding real issues.

Thats American politics. Except for the NDP, Canada has gone the same way during election campaigns. No issues means nothing to look at except image, which is really weird considering Dion is such a wiener. Yes, wiener. Harper's image is actually stronger now, but beneath that image there is some pretty scary stuff.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I think he just flatters himself by thinking that anyone cares about what he has to say or that he will have any impact on the outcome.

---

quote:

---

I, for one, an VERY grateful that Canada has more than two choices, because otherwise my conscience would not let me vote at all.

---

Americans have many choices too. If you are American you can register as a Democrat and have a voice in having anyone from Dennis Kucinich to Hillary Clinton as your presidential candidate. Since parties in the US are not really parties at all in the Canadian sense, there is probably a wider range of ideologies within the Democratic party than there is in the entire Canadian political system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Americans have many choices too. If you are American you can register as a Democrat and have a voice in having anyone from Dennis Kucinich to Hillary Clinton as your presidential candidate. Since parties in the US are not really parties at all in the Canadian sense, there is probably a wider range of ideologies within the Democratic party than there is in the entire Canadian political system.

---

ETA: Link

excerpt:

Campaigning in Ohio today, Barack Obama said the American people would not be swayed by Ralph Nader's run for president.

"There you go. He's at it every four years," Obama said during a news conference.

Obama said Nader had convinced some voters that there was little difference between President Bush and Al Gore.

"Eight years later people realize Ralph didn't know what he was talking about," he said.

[ 25 February 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Ha. Yeah, Clinton, it didn't turn out well because you idiots in the Democratic Party refuse to run people who actually appeal to people on the left.

---

quote:

---

How times have changed. After 1968, the antiwar forces briefly took over the Democratic Party and ran George McGovern in 1972. Thanks to a lack of support from the party's corporate backers, an uneven campaign strategy, and a Republican campaign that included a number of dirty tricks, McGovern lost and the progressive forces within the Democratic Party moved back into the shadows. Since then, these forces have played a role that revolves primarily around keeping progressive independents from running a third-party campaign (a role ironically now also played by the third party Greens). By performing this role, these forces have prevented the progressive voice in US electoral politics from being heard in any effective manner and have helped create the current political situation in the US where most people don't vote and those that do have a choice that only represents the American right wing.

---

McGovern was the 1972 anti-war candidate, but he was no leftist. And after his political demise the Democratic Party made sure the party was forever immune to any real turn to the left.

quote:

---

A critical development in the rightward turn of the US electoral culture has been the demise of progressive forces having any meaningful influence in the higher reaches of the Democratic Party. Business has always been important in the Democratic Party and the campaign to increase corporate influence grew after progressive George McGovern won the nomination in 1972 and wrote the most anticorporate platform since Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1936 campaign. But the main institutional development in this regard was the rise and operation of the business-funded Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) under Bill Clinton and Al Gore, among others, starting in 1985. The explicit purpose of the DLC was to make the Democrats as decidedly probusiness and promilitary as the Republicans. It was the DLC that pushed the Democrats to adopt neoliberal policies like industry deregulation, budget balancing at all costs, privatization of public services, lower business taxes, and support for global corporate trade deals like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and NAFTA. For its traditional constituencies of women, minorities, environmentalists, and labor it offered a far smaller feast of lukewarm support for civil rights, affirmative action, abortion rights, and the oft-repeated argument that “hey, we are nowhere near as bad as the Republicans.” But genuine progressive policies like single-payer health insurance, equalization of school spending, demilitarization of the political economy, quality public transportation, increasing the ability of workers to form trade unions, reducing economic inequality, rehabilitation rather than retribution for those convicted of violent crimes, opposition to drug prohibition, and guaranteed employment at a living wage—most of which had a viable basis of support within Democratic circles in the 1970s—were fully purged from the party platforms with the DLC’s inspiration and guidance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:
You mean like George McGovern? How did that work out?

---

It ain't just one man or one woman. The one party really is different from the other, even if they're both far on the other side of decent. (Nicaragua had a chance in '79 that it would not have had with the Republicans running things.)

Here is the other thing about Nader - folks like him keep the Democrats honest by ensuring there is a political cost to turning too far to the center. Moreover, you can have a slow ratcheting up of success that gets the American far left (which would be run-of-the-mill social democrats elsewhere) on the map - soon they get invited to debates.

The rise of a viable American party of the left would involve a tradeoff. In the short-term it would help the Republicans. However, in the long term it could provide a viable social democratic option to Americans (I think the ideal and most likely scenario would be for the progressive left to do very well in one election, and then merge with the Democrats, in exchange for considerable concessions).

quote:

---

It's sadly comical to me to see the fundie liberals bash Nader while he's calling for universal health care but give Obama a pass for leaving more than 15 million Americans uninsured in his so-called solution. Or bash Nader for his role in "causing" the Iraq war but giving Clinton - and a majority of her Dem colleagues - a pass for actually voting for it. Or blaming Nader for the entirety of the Bush years while refusing to acknowledge the real blame that rests at the feet of the fundamentalist Dems who have done little but play along for eight years - remember, it was only ONE Dem (Feingold) who opposed the Patriot Act.

For the Dems, the solution to the Nader candidacy is not to call for a repugnant and chilling rebuke of his Constitutional rights but to strengthen their own issue resolve so that the Nader option wouldn't be necessary. But they're refusing to do so, instead zeroing in on a candidate - Obama - who is mostly hype and hope and very, very little substance or resume. It's Obama - not Nader - who is in bed with the nuclear industry and its lobbyists. It's Obama - not Nader - who won't say a peep about reining in Wall Street. It's Obama - not Nader - who won't promote universal health care. It's Obama - not Nader - who won't even mention the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. And it's Obama - not Nader - who doesn't have a track record for standing up and speaking up even when it's not very popular to do so. Source

---

McKinney has the experience of having held public office, though Nader knows a lot about how things work inside Washington. The biggest knock against her, in my view, is that she stuck with the Democratic Party long after its "sell by" date, and resigned from the party only six months ago, several years after it had stabbed her in the back.

Nader has been "independent" for much longer, though his major strategic aim seems to be to push the Democratic Party to the left. He has been known to give his supporters his blessing to vote for Democrats in tight races with the Republicans. And he has never given any indication that his aim is to build a party representing independent labour political action, which in my opinion is the first item on the agenda for the USian working class. Nader has embraced protectionist policies and chauvinist, “Buy American” campaigns.

McKinney voted for the post-September 11 resolution that authorized Bush to take military action in Afghanistan, although she opposed the Patriot Act. She has been linked to Louis Farrakhan’s “Nation of Islam” organization.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
There's not much to choose between them. Neither is what I would call a socialist; they are left-liberals or social democrats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:

But can one say they represent opposition to neoliberalism, no?

---

Yes, I think they do oppose the new Liberal capitalism. If Nader's Greens and the NDP were favourable to MNC's, then they would likely have big money backing, ie. well-funded war chests for TV and radio time. Remember, and just as an example ... Hitler was nowhere with his anti-semitic rhetoric in the 1920's. He needed big money backing and to change his tune when giving squawking oratories. I think he came off sounding like a left-wing nationalist when speaking infront of workers. What he actually said to big business types and the banking elite was another ie. Could this describe the way Liberals campaign on the left but govern on the right? Hitler was the biggest liar of the last century.

quote:

---

He preaches opposition to NAFTA and wants it renegotiated. It's a "charade" says Nader. "There's no way he'll touch NAFTA or WTO." His health care plan puts insurance companies in charge and lets Big Pharma price-gouge consumers. He's beholden to corporate interests. "If he wins, his appointments will give "lobbies and PACs (what they) want." He knows how Washington works; was fully briefed to be sure; and he "made his peace with that." He's a political animal like the others. Big money is comforted, and why not. No one gets top Washington jobs unless they're "safe." For president, it's practically a blood oath, and Obama qualifies.

---

quote:

---

As we come closer to the presidential election of 2008, the same old myth perpetuated by the two-party-controlled mainstream media is about to unfold again. Do not vote for a third party candidate, or else you end up with President Bush, falsely pointing out that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000.

The fact is 9 million registered Democrats did not vote for Al Gore in 2000. More telling is that over 200,000 registered Democrats did not vote for Al Gore in Florida alone. What's more, another 600,000 registered Democrats in Florida did not vote at all.

In addition, Al Gore lost his home state and ran a terrible campaign, but it is easier to blame others for one's own failures. Sixty-two percent of Nader's votes came from Republicans, independents, third-party votes and non-voters.

---

quote:

---

Ralph Nader won the Peace and Freedom Party nomination for president of the United States at the party’s convention [this weekend] in Sacramento. His national running mate, Matt Gonzalez, was also confirmed as the party’s vice presidential candidate....

The nomination puts Nader and his vice presidential running mate, Matt Gonzalez, on the ballot in California for the November 4, 2008 general election. As the most populous state, a Nader-Gonzalez candidacy in California gives a critical boost to the Nader-Gonzalez ticket nationwide.

Nader and Gonzalez promised at the convention to use their national campaign to boost the Peace and Freedom Party in qualifying for ballots in many other states. Nader is already said to be polling the support of 6 per cent of the nationwide electorate.

Nader won 46 out of 89 delegate votes cast, beating Gloria La Riva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation with 27 votes, Brian Moore of the Socialist Party with 10 votes, and Cynthia McKinney with 6 votes. McKinney, a former 6-term Democratic congresswoman from Georgia, had already won the presidential nomination of the Green Party.

---

Odd that both Nader and Barr are said to be polling six percent.

quote:

---

As Ralph says, if tens of millions of Americans can hear the Nader/Gonzalez message through the

Presidential debates, it will be a three way race.

---

So while third-parties may in many circumstances not have a chance of winning they are the most likely sources of change in government policy.

Last night, just before the event happened, I found out about Ralph Nader speaking in Toronto.

I had become disheartened and somewhat tired of the fight for social justice, but then maybe it is just a matter of ill health.

As for U.S. politics, I still remember seeing Jesse Ventura, the then Governor of Minnesota, the retired wrestler, calling then U.S. President Bill Clinton a "socialist", this after Clinton had brought in a law that put a lifetime limit of five years for receiving welfare in the U.S.A. left me apathetic of the american political scene. The interviewer as I remember did not ever question Ventura's claims about Clinton being a socialist.

While I greatly respected what Ralph Nader had done for consumer and other rights there, I was uncertain about his run for the Presidency.

Well this cynic found the 3-1/2 hour night with Ralph Nader extremely inspiring and energizing.

And yes, in a democracy people have a right to run, there should not be a stranglehold by those who already have power. But don't try to say that to the Commission on Presidential Debates that is run exclusively by the Republicans and Democrats and has the exclusive deals with ABC, CBS and NBC to broadcast presidential debates and that shut anybody not from either of their two political parties. Of course being a private entity it is not open to public scrutiny.

I think it is very important for the public to hear other voices. Remember that in the U.S. that until I think 1854, there were only two parties who had a stranglehold on power, the Democrats and the Whigs, until the upstart Republican party pushed against the two established parties to demand an end to legislated slavery.

And the U.S. does have a history of third parties running, look at Henry Wallace and the US elections of 1944 and 1948.

While Canadians cannot contribute to Nader's election campaign, those with dual (US) citizenship and American citizens living here can contribute.

We Canadians can still indirectly provide support to open debate of ALL ISSUES by linking to www.votenader.org from our web sites and even by creating pages for those with dual citizenship or American citizens living here encouraging them to visit the Vote Nader site.

I see nothing wrong in us Kanucks informing Americans here of this site and suggesting they get informed and look at another viewpoint.

I think if you were at that event last nigh you too would want to encourage those who can vote and contribute to to the US election to at least visit Nader's site and to do so on your web sites or blogs you post to.

quote:

---

We can surmise that most eligible voters, and many ineligible ones, already know how they would vote in November 2008, their major uncertainty is how to describe why they voted as they will, while maintaining the appearances that matter to them. Justifying a vote for McCain or against empire is trivial, raw capitalism and white power prefer the former, revolution the latter. More nuanced justifications are needed by Obama voters. Perhaps the simplest and sincerest justification would be a desire to elect an Afro-American president. Others could claim they are Democratic Party loyalists, hence automatic voters for Obama. This is an elastic rationale which can be conveniently stretched to cover over both ideological and pork barrel affinities. The most elaborate justifications would have to be by leftists and progressives, people who see themselves as anti-imperialists, who plan to vote for Obama as a way to vote against the McCain continuation of Bush-Cheneyism, thus of necessity casting ballots in favor of the empire. This conflict between self-image and political reality -- Obama is an imperialist -- has been oozing through its cocoon of denial in published commentaries that admit to "disillusion" and complain about Obama's "shift to the right." Obama hasn't changed, but for people who can't yet face up to the fact that they deluded themselves, it is easier to ascribe the evaporation of their illusions to an undesirable shift in Obama's political stance. [QUOTE]

[QUOTE] Objectively, I realize that Ralph Nader will not win the election. So, is my vote wasted? Since it is my vote and I prefer to apply it to the support of the people who carry on the platform of ideas I would wish this nation to adopt, no. I understand how presumptuous Democrats may wish to commandeer my vote, with the excuse that as a leftist I should be a captive of their party, and vote for O'Clinton to spite McBush. They will wail that my vote for Nader is a wasted vote, perhaps even contributing to a Republican victory. But, I repeat, I will never again vote for war, and I will never again endorse the empire. I don't care if I'm the only person in the country who votes against the empire. That will never be a wasted vote. "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get lots of it."

If I can do this, then so can you, and so could a majority of US voters, once they wake up.

---

quote:

---

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader delivered an indictment of the Democratic Party Wednesday night and assailed the press for ignoring third-party candidates.

Speaking to reporters before a Denver rally of supporters and onlookers, Nader said the Democratic Party has abandoned “working people” and become “an indentured servant” of corporations.

He went on to blast the party for accepting contributions from business interests to fund this week’s Democratic convention. “The corporate merry-go-round has hitched its wagon to the Democratic Party and the rhetoric of the Democratic Party has responded accordingly,” Nader declared.

Nader’s supporters staged Wednesday’s rally to back his position that he and other third-party candidates should be included in this fall’s debates. But Nader launched into a broader attack on the two-party system, corporate influence on government and a press corps Nader accused of acquiescing in a duopoly.

“If we were in the debates, we would have a three-way race,” Nader said. “But tens of millions of Americans have never been told we are even in the race.”

Six percent of respondents to a July CNN poll said they want Nader to be president. A Wall Street Journal poll around the same time had Nader at 5 percent.

A number of minor and major celebrities and musical acts took the stage before Nader, including antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan, who said she first blamed President Bush for her son’s death in Iraq but now believes both parties are captive of a “military industrial complex.”

Actor Sean Penn said he came as a supporter of no candidate, but praised Nader and joined him in attacking the media as “servants of a corporate agenda” and accusing Obama and McCain of “diminishing our Constitution” in their support for Bush administration anti-terror policies at home.

Rally organizers said 4,000 people paid $10 in advance or $12 at the door to attend.

---

quote:

---

About 75 percent of the American people believe corporations have too much control over their lives. Yet reducing such control or holding it accountable is not part of electoral or political discourse.

A majority of the American people, and fifty-nine percent of physicians in an April poll, favor single payer or full government health insurance (as in full Medicare for all) with free choice of hospital and doctor, private delivery of care, and far less administrative costs and billing fraud. The health insurance companies would be displaced.

John McCain and Barack Obama have never had to debate this majoritarian preference along with their piecemeal, concessionary heathcare plans that please these same insurance companies.

The pollsters also reflect, embody and are saturated with this politics of avoidance. They do not poll the various impacts of concentrated corporate power on the various roles people play in the workplace, marketplace, and their communities.

The New York Times/CBS News Poll of delegates to the Democratic Convention asked about the condition of the economy, health care, going into Iraq, energy, abortion and gay marriage.

Not one question was asked about the most dominant power over government, elections, politics, the federal operating budget, and our political economy.

Whoever asks the questions, whoever controls the yardsticks controls the agenda of public dialogue. The politics of avoidance is designed to avoid the politics of corporate power.

---

quote:

---

Last year I issued a Labor Day statement noting that the Taft-Hartley Act, one of the great blows to American democracy, had been in effect for 60 years. Well another year has come and gone and this law is still in place. Taft-Harley continues to: impede employees' right to join together in labor unions; undermine the power of unions to represent workers' interests effectively; and authorize an array of anti-union activities by employers.

Union officials should speak out for abolition of Taft-Hartley, and not concede this monumental employer usurpation of worker rights. Against the backdrop of the assault on labor that has included aggressive employer demands for concessions, the downward pull of international low-wage workers, weak and barely enforced labor and workplace safety laws, most workers have seen wage rates almost stagnate over the past several decades — even as CEO salaries have skyrocketed.

Major union leaders in the United States do vocally support the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041) which according to the AFL-CIO will: “Establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations. Provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes. [And,] [a]llow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation” On March 1, 2007 H.R. 800, which has introduced by Congressman George Miller, D-CA, and which has 233 co-sponsors, passed on a roll call vote with 241 votes in favor of the bill and 185 opposed. On June 26, 2007 the Senate tried to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, but the Republicans, with the exception of Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania filibustered the bill. The Employee Free Choice Act should, however, be but one battle in the fight to restore worker rights in the United States.

---

Ralph Nader made it.

Cynthia McKinney didn't.

Nader is now on the ballot in every state except North Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, and he is a write-in candidate in all those states except Oklahoma.

[ 25 September 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

Nader's position on the financial bailout:

quote:

---

Congress needs to show some backbone before the federal government pours more money on the financial bonfire started by the arsonists on Wall Street.

1. Congress should hold a series of hearings and invite broad public comment on any proposed bailout. Congress is supposed to be a co-equal branch of our federal government. It needs to stop the stampede to give Bush a $700 billion check. Public hearings should be held to determine what alternatives might exist to the four-page proposal advanced by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson.

2. Whatever is ultimately done, the bailout plan should not be insulated from judicial review. Remember there is a third co-equal branch of government – the judiciary. The judiciary does not need to review each buy-and-sell decision by the Treasury Department, but there should be some boundaries established to the Treasury Department's discretion, and judicial review is needed to ensure that unbridled discretion is not abused.

3. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. The bailout that is ultimately approved must provide for full and timely disclosure of all bailout details. This will discourage conflicts of interest and limit the potential of sweetheart deals.

4. Firms that accept government bailout monies must agree to disclose their transactions and be more honest in their accounting. They should agree to end off-the-books accounting maneuvers, for example.

5. Taxpayers must be protected by having a stake in any recovery. The bailout plan should provide opportunities for taxpayers to recoup funds that are made available to problem financial institutions or to benefit from the financial institutions' rising stock price and increased profitability after being bailed out.

6. The current so-called “regulators” cannot be trusted. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), "the investigative arm of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog,” must regularly review the bailout. We cannot trust the financial “regulators,” who allowed the slide into financial disaster, to manage the bailout without outside monitoring.

7. It is time to put the federal cop back on the financial services beat. Strong financial regulations and independent regulators are necessary to rebuild trust in our financial institutions and to prevent further squandering of our tax dollars. The Justice Department and the SEC also need to scrutinize the expanding mess with an eye to uncovering corporate crime and misdeeds. Major news outlets are reporting that the FBI is investigating American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers.

8. Cap executive compensation and stop giving the Wall Street gamblers golden parachutes. The CEOs who have created the financial disaster should not be allowed to leave with millions in hand when so many pensioners and small shareholders are seeing their investments evaporate. The taxpayers are bailing out Wall Street so that the financial system continues to function, not to further enrich the CEOs and executives who created this mess.

9. Congress should pass the Financial Consumers' Information and Representation Act, to permit citizens to form a federally-chartered nonprofit membership organization to strengthen consumer representation in government proceedings that concern the financial services industry. As the savings and loan disasters of the 1980s and the Wall Street debacles of the last few years have demonstrated, there is an overriding need for consumers and taxpayers to have the organized means to enhance their influence on financial issues.

10. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, separating traditional banks from investment banks, helped pave the way for the current disaster. It is time to re-regulate the financial sector. The current crisis is also leading to even further conglomeration and concentration in the financial sector. We must revive and apply antitrust principles, so that banking consumers can benefit from competition and taxpayers are less vulnerable to too-big-to-fail institutions, merging with each other to further concentration.

11. Congress should impose a securities and derivatives speculation tax. A tax on financial trading would slow down the churning of stocks and financial instruments, and could raise substantial monies to pay for the bailout.

12. Regulators should impose greater margin requirements, making speculators use more of their own money and diminishing reckless casino capitalism.

---

quote:

---

The campaigns of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney are not the acts of spoilers or vanity candidates. They are the acts of third party candidates struggling for the magical 15 percent that will allow them to challenge the hegemony of the Democratic and Republican parties in televised debates viewed by over 70 million voters. They are the acts of American citizens who believe it is a constitution rather than a corporate charter that is the governing document of our Republic.

Nader and McKinney are not naïve enough to think they’ll need to keep millions of donors’ dollars in reserve for their inaugural balls. They are campaigning for something more important than the presidency. They are campaigning to bring about systemic changes in the “politics as usual” in America. They are campaigning to redeem Abraham Lincoln’s “radical” ideal of an American “government of the people, by the people, and for [ALL] the people.”

---

quote:

---

Ralph Nader is a man of political substance trapped in an era of easy lies. He pierces the fog of propaganda with hard facts and reason, but the smoke rolls over him and he disappears from public view. A lesser man might go crazy or get the message and give it up. Nader instead runs for president again, as he is doing this year, campaigning in fifty states and addressing crowds wherever he finds them, smaller crowds this time but still eager to feed on his idealism. Ralph is not delusional. He knows the story. He is stubborn about the facts and honest with himself.

"I believe in I.F. Stone's dictum that in all social justice movements, you've got to be ready to lose. And lose and lose and lose. It's not very pleasant, but you have to accept this if you believe in what you're doing," Nader explained.

He was conducting a "newsmaker" press conference at the National Press Club in Washington on Friday before moving on to Massachussetts, where he planned to deliver more than twenty speeches in one day, in hopes of earning a place in the Guinness Book of World Records. Five or six reporters showed up at the Press Club event (including several old admirers). The only camera was a documentary film maker. Nader stood at the podium and read from a lengthy speech describing the corporate dominance of politics, the stranglehold exercised on dissent by the two-party system, the presidential candidates packaged like soap and cars, the failure of left-liberal progressives (including The Nation) to demand conditions on their support for the Democratic candidate.

"The hypocrisy of liberals, which may in some ways be unconscious, is empowering the forces that are destroying our nation," Nader asserted in an even-tempered voice. "The left in this country has been successfully cowed by the Democratic Party," he continued. "The votes of progressives are taken for granted by Democrats.... By allowing ourselves to be manipulated, we have demonstrated that we have no moral substance. We have no line that can never be crossed, no stance so sacred and important that we are willing to stand up and fight back."

So long as progressives are willing to settle for the "least worst" alternative, they will remain ignored and excluded from power, he suggested.

This kind of talk from Nader drives some people to rage against him. He returns the favor by discussing "the rage that many in our nation feel towards liberals." Barack Obama, he insists, does not intend to alter anything fundamental about the causes. "This rage is a legitimate expression of very real betrayal," Nader explained. "The working class, most of whom do not vote, watch Democratic candidate after Democratic candidate run for office promising to support labor and protect jobs and then, once elected, trot off to Washington to pass the corporate-friendly legislation drawn up by the 35,000 lobbyists who work for our shadow government."

---

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

In an act that was part satire and part protest, Nader gave a press conference in which for the first portion he would only respond to reporters’ questions with one word answers, mocking what his campaign describes as the media’s reliance on sound bites.

When asked for one word to describe Obama, Nader responded “clever”, and described the amount of money the Obama campaign has spent as “disgusting”. When questioned what the major policy difference between Obama and himself Nader answered “corporations”. When asked what promises Obama wouldn’t keep Nader replied “change”, “hope”, and “peace”.

When asked about his impression of McCain, Nader answered with “clone” and “Bushlike”. Prompted to predict which Presidential candidate he would take more votes from, Nader responded “McCain” and when pressed to elaborate said “polls”.

Nader answered that the reason he ran this year was “justice” and that he would “maybe” decide to run in 2012.

In the second portion of the conference, Nader reverted to complete sentences and elaborated on his grievance with the media. - Source

---

quote:

---

The stilted question-and-answer session felt at times like a bad game of "Jeopardy." Reporters played along with little protest and reached for questions that led to one-word answers. Many even started asking one-word questions, though that wasn't in the rules.

But there were some telling moments. Here's a sampling:

What is your opinion of Obama? "Clever."

What is your opinion of Palin? "Developing."

How much money did you raise for your campaign? "Insufficient."

Why do you keep running for president? "Justice."

Will you be elected president? "No."

When do you think you will win? "Sometime."

What should Bush do on his last day in office? "Surrender."

Will Obama be able to provide tax cuts to 95 percent of the population? "Impossible."

What is your opinion of the media? "Servile." - Source

---

quote:

---

Carl Bernstein says he heard it from Karl Rove, so it must be true. Rove is Bernstein’s new Deep Throat. Is he that desperate for a fresh Watergate to jumpstart his career? He says Ralph Nader’s progressive presidential campaign is dangerous for the young and poor voter in America. Nader’s campaign translates their needs into a political agenda that may get Nader some votes. It is subversive because it operates under the radar, but that's only because it has been ignored by Big Media, already satiated with millions from the major party campaigns. Bernstein should know that.

While his Watergate Partner, Bob Woodward, has gone on to write a stream of books first flattering, then trashing Bush and his administration, Bernstein can’t be bothered by the mountain of facts that have emerged from the research by others to explain the many and complex reasons why Gore lost Florida in 2000. A new book suggests when Gore refused to commit to stop an extension of an airport into the Everglades National Park, local environmentalists decided to teach him a lesson. We forget Gore’s caution at matters environmental in 2000 and his silence on global warming during his campaign.

The aggressive Republican Party post-elections strategy to put operatives on the ground to win at all costs and the feckless Democratic retreat in 2000 has been detailed. Most of us know the US Supreme Court decided a presidential election and got away with it. In their White House shouting match about Election 2000, Gore blamed Clinton’s shenanigans with Monica and Bill blamed Gore’s failure to run on Clinton’s record. But Bernstein still blames Nader and sees danger ahead because Karl told him so.

---

"The hypocrisy of liberals, which may in some ways be unconscious, is empowering the forces that are destroying our nation," Nader asserted in an even-tempered voice. "The left in this country has been successfully cowed by the Democratic Party," he continued. "The votes of progressives are taken for granted by Democrats.... By allowing ourselves to be manipulated, we have demonstrated that we have no moral substance. We have no line that can never be crossed, no stance so sacred and important that we are willing to stand up and fight back."

"Progressives" themselves have made progressive candidates irrelevant.

[ 04 November 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
I don't think there's going to be any spoiling going on today. Nader has become irrelevant.

---

Because it doesn't seem like he's really getting anywhere.

Sure there's lots wrong with the Democratic party but does that give Nader a free pass on his inability to connect with voters? Nader is doing the same thing over and over again and surprise getting the same result.

Maybe he should consider stepping aside and letting someone else be the alternative candidate, or try running for a senate seat.

I agree with many of Nader's criticisms of the corporatocracy--but i don't understand how his supporters could be happy with his lack of success as a political agent.

Has Nader accomplished anything over the last eight years? How has the radical left benefitted from having Nader as the flag bearer?