Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
At 1:03 AM -0400 8/11/04, Michael Hoover wrote: The best way to highlight unequal/unjust ballot access procedures is to actually run a campaign that runs afoul of them -- then, there is a practical struggle. Who cares if ballot access procedures are unequal and unjust if there is no candidate other than the Democratic and Republican ones to begin with? of course, my point was that nader people have not - and will not - raise equal protection matter (although they'll - no doubt, and rightly so - complain about being exluded from prez debates)... Have you actually looked into all the lawsuits that the Nader campaigns have filed? Here are a couple of lawsuits (probably among many more) that the Nader campaigns this year and in the part have filed, singly or jointly with other parties: blockquoteV.T.C.A., Election Code §§192.032(a), 192.032(b)(3)(A), 192.032(c), and 192.032(d), as applied to the Plaintiffs herein for the 2004 Texas General Election and all subsequent General Elections in Texas, and the facts and circumstances relating thereto, are illegal and unconstitutional, in that they are violative of the rights of the Plaintiffs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Title 42, United States Code, § 1983, in that the aforesaid statutes are not framed in the least restrictive manner necessary to achieve the legitimate State interests in regulating ballot access for a Presidential election, particularly as relating to the fact that the relatively earlier filing deadline for the current election year (viz.: May 10, 2004), shorter petitioning time, and higher number of required petition signature of 64,077 for Independent presidential candidates as opposed to the later petition signature deadline for the current election year (viz.: May 24, 2004), longer petitioning time, and lower petition signature requirement of 45,540 for recognition of new political parties in Texas constitutes an invidious discrimination against Independent presidential candidates in violation of their rights and the rights of their potential supporters under the equal protection clause to the United States Constitution, their right to political association for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right to cast their votes effectively; and, as applied to Independent presidential candidates, Texas' relatively early signature deadline, combined with the significantly higher signature requirement for Independent candidates as opposed to new political party candidates, and other particular circumstances herein, establishes an unreasonable and undue burden on Independent candidates for President of the United States seeking ballot access in Texas. http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/nader/nadertxsuit.html/blockquote blockquote1. This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs challenge the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's requirement at 25 P.S. §§ 2873, 2911, 2913, and 2914 that all candidates for elected office pay a filing fee in order to gain access to the ballot, with no provision for a waiver of such fee or alternative means of ballot qualification. This filing fee system violates Plaintiffs' fundamental rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. http://www.nvri.org/library/cases/Belitskus/Belitskuscomplaint.pdf/blockquote blockquoteOhio had authority to list the name of presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the November 2000 ballot without his Green Party affiliation, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. Ohio officials said the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholds the state's position that it has authority to impose reasonable requirements for ballot listings to ensure orderly, fair elections. The Green Party and Nader had argued that keeping the party's designation off the ballot violated their constitutional rights of free speech, free association and equal protection of law. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=4245/blockquote As a matter of fact, in his writing, Nader indicted violations of the equal protection clause as early as in 1958 in the context of noting the court's turning a blind eye to them: blockquoteFor example, the Illinois statute states that a petition to nominate candidates for a new political party must be signed by at least 25,000 qualified voters, including at least 200 from each of the 102 counties in the state. The New York statute compels even greater omnipresence. It reads:An independent nominating petition for candidates to be voted for by all the voters of the state must be signed by at least 12,000 signatures of whom at least 50 shall reside in each county of the state The Illinois law was challenged by the Progressive Party just before the 1948 elections. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court where
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/11/04 3:03 AM At 1:03 AM -0400 8/11/04, Michael Hoover wrote: of course, my point was that nader people have not - and will not - raise equal protection matter (although they'll - no doubt, and rightly so - complain about being exluded from prez debates)... Have you actually looked into all the lawsuits that the Nader campaigns have filed? Here are a couple of lawsuits (probably among many more) that the Nader campaigns this year and in the part have filed, singly or jointly with other parties: the 2004 Texas General Election and all subsequent General Elections in Texas, and the facts and circumstances relating thereto, are illegal and unconstitutional, in that they are violative of the rights of the Plaintiffs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to blockquote1. This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs challenge the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's requirement blockquoteOhio had authority to list the name of presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the November 2000 ballot without his Green Party affiliation, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. Ohio officials said the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholds the state's position that it has authority to impose reasonable requirements for ballot listings to ensure orderly, fair elections. The Green Party and Nader had argued that keeping the party's designation off the ballot violated their constitutional rights of free speech, free association and equal protection of law. As a matter of fact, in his writing, Nader indicted violations of the equal protection clause as early as in 1958 in the context of noting the court's turning a blind eye to them: The Illinois law was challenged by the Progressive Party just before the 1948 elections. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court where it was argued that the statute's disproportionate favoring of rural counties violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the court disagreed and upheld the law. Writing the dissent, Justice Douglas stated: The notion that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to our standards for popular representative government. He was referring to the fact that 25,000 signatures from 50 of the least populous counties could form a new party while the same number from 49 counties with 87 percent of the registered voters could not. . . . stand corrected re. reference to 14th amendment, although none of above addresses point i was making, they're all *within* states, not *among* them.. texas example is about differential filing deadlines between parties and independent candidates in texas, not differential deadlines throughout states... penn example is about absence of waiver for filing fee in penn (other states make allowance for such, thus, to not do so could be determined 'unreasonable' under 83 supreme court decision btw: 83 supreme court decision allows for differential definition of 'reasonableness'... ohio example is about differential number of petition signatures needed in ohio, party vs independent candidate... re. illinois example in 58 nader co-authored article, douglas dissent refers to differential number of signatures among state's counties, interestingly, this does begin to get at my point if douglass critique is applied *among* the states, similar to warren's 64 majority opinion in _reynolds v sims_ (case from alabama, if memory serves correctly) holding that one-person one-vote apportionment principle applied to state senates as well as to state lower-houses, if so, similar *principle* could also apply to u.s. senate irrespective of 1787 constitutional arrangement, same for douglass dissent if one considers differential numbers in various states (which could be addressed with use of percentage since states do have different size populations)... many technical/procedural/justice problems arise from 1787 constitutional language assigning each state authority to determine times, places, manner of holding elections... Sorry, I meant to write the Liberty Party. Although its vote never exceeded 3% of the votes cast in a presidential election, the party did further political abolitionism. In closely contested state and local elections, the Liberty party often held the balance of power, sometimes causing major party candidates to take advanced antislavery positions in a bid for its support (Kinley J. Brauer, Liberty Party, Encyclopedia Americana). More importantly, many Libertymen eventually joined with anti-slavery factions of Whigs and Democrats to form the Free Soil Party, many of whose former members would later form the core of the Republican Party. Only out of many seeming failures can a movement grow -- in fact, there is no way people can gain political experience except by trying, failing
Nader press release on Kerry's Me-Too-ism
Nader For President 2004 P.O. Box 18002 - Washington, DC 20036 - www.VoteNader.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For Further Information: August 10, 2004 Kevin Zeese 202-265-4000 Nader: Is there no end to Kerry's Me-Too-ism with Bush on Iraq? Washington, D.C.: Independent Candidate Ralph Nader today criticized John Kerry for responding to Bush bait and saying he would still vote for the Iraq war knowing what he knows today. Nader asked: Is there no end to John Kerrys me-too-ism on the Iraq War? John Kerry and all Americans know today that we were misled by President Bush in order to justify the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. We now know: 1. There Were No Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is no longer in dispute: there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. According to David Kay, President Bushs former chief weapons inspector, any weapons of mass destruction were destroyed after the Gulf War. After returning from Iraq, having led a large team of inspectors and spent nearly half a billion dollars, David Kay told the president: We were wrong. (See: David Kay testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee, January 28, 2004.) 2. There Were No Ties Between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission review now indicates there were no ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda. Indeed, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were mortal enemiesone secular, the other fundamentalist. 3. Saddam Hussein Was Not a Threat to the United States. In fact, Hussein was a tottering dictator, with an antiquated command over an uncontrolled army, Kurdish enemies to the north, and Shiite adversaries to the South. Hussein could not even control the air space over most of Iraq. 4. Saddam Hussein Was Not a Threat to his Neighbors: In fact, Iraq was surrounded by countries with far superior military forces. Turkey, Iran, and Israel were all capable of obliterating any aggressive move by the weakened Iraqi dictator. 5. We Have Not Liberated the Iraqi People. The United States has merely installed a puppet government. We continue to have an occupying force of over 130,000 troops in Iraq and plann on building 14 military bases there. Our corporations are putting down roots in Iraq to ensure control of its natural resources, especially oil. In response to President Bushs demand for clarification of Senator Kerrys position, Kerry said: Yes, I would have voted for the authority. The authority to declare war is exclusively in the hands of Congress (Article I, Section 8) and cannot be delegated as the Congress did in October 2002. It becomes more difficult every day to know what John Kerry stands for. At the Democratic Convention he said he would not send troops to war unless absolutely necessary; now he says he would have authorized troops for Iraq, despite what we now know. Prior to the Convention, Kerry said he would keep troops in Iraq throughout his first term in the presidency; last week he said he would reduce them in the first six monthsthen his aides clarified his statement and said reduction was a best case target, said Nader. Why is Kerry letting George W. Bush off the hook and letting down the widening anti-war movement and like-minded citizens in the U.S.A.? -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/11/04 8:32 AM many technical/procedural/justice problems arise from 1787 constitutional language assigning each state authority to determine times, places, manner of holding elections... meant to note in above portion of earlier point that congress may at any time by law make or alter state regulations... query 1: what became of nader's announcement a few months ago that he was going to establish a 'populist' party... query 2: reform party 'endorsement' of nader preceded his selection of camejo as running mate, any listers know whether reform endorsement is for nader only or does it include candidate at bottom of ticket as well... can imagine some (many?) 'reformers' being less than pleased if party endorsed socialist, 2000 reform party squabbles that gave impression of turnips falling off vegetable cart still exist to some degree, evidenced by dual/duel parties in michigan, moreover, nader endorsement has apparently not gone over well with some (majority?) in whatever remains of whatever reform party endorsed him, sounds familiar... mh -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
KPFA had a debate between Cobb Camejo regarding the charge of the rigged convention. It did not sound nearly as clear cut as it was presented here. I was once on a jury panel for Camejo, but was kicked off left with a clenched fist salute. I liked what he did when I was at Berkeley, but in his run for Gov., much of his attack on Davis what almost identical to what the Republicans said. He would mention some progressive positions, but he devoted most of his time to fiscal responsibility. In the debate Cobb came off as a well-intentioned Green. Not strong, but nice sincere, but he gave a reasonable explanation. Camejo had answers, but nobody seemed to have a clear cut case. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Kerry versus Nader on the Mideast
The Cause of Israel is the Cause of America By SEN. JOHN KERRY My first trip to Israel made real for me all I'd believed about Israel. I was allowed to fly an air force jet from the Ovda Airbase. It was then that Israeli insecurity about narrow borders became very real to me. In a matter of minutes, I came close to violating the airspace of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. From that moment on, I felt as Israelis do: The promise of peace must be secure before the Promised Land is secure on a thin margin of land. Back on the ground on that first trip, I toured the country from Kibbutz Mizgav Am to Masada to the Golan. I stood in the very shelter in a kibbutz in the north where children were attacked and I looked at launching sites and impact zones for Katousha rockets. I was enthralled by Tel Aviv, moved by Jerusalem and inspired by by standing above Capernaum, looking out over the Sea of Galilee, where I read aloud the Sermon on The Mount. I met people of stunning commitment, who honestly and vigorously debated the issues as I watched and listened intently. I went as a friend by conviction; I returned a friend at the deepest personal level. full: http://www.counterpunch.org/kerry02172004.html === Nader Writes to the Anti-Defamation League on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Dear Mr. Foxman: How nice to hear your views. Years ago, fresh out of law school, I was reading your clear writings against bigotry and discrimination. Your charter has always been to advance civil liberties and free speech in our country by and for all ethnic and religious groups. These days all freedom-loving people have much work to do. As you know there is far more freedom in the media, in town squares and among citizens, soldiers, elected representatives and academicians in Israel to debate and discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than there is in the United States. Israelis of all backgrounds have made this point. Do you agree and if so, what is your explanation for such a difference? About half of the Israeli people over the years have disagreed with the present Israeli governments policies toward the Palestinian people. Included in this number is the broad and deep Israeli peace movement which mobilized about 120,000 people in a Tel Aviv square recently. Do you agree with their policies and strategy for a peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians? Or do you agree with the House Resolution 460 in Congress signed by 407 members of the House to support the Prime Ministers proposal? See attachment re the omission of any reference to a viable Palestinian state generally considered by both Israelis and Palestinians, including those who have worked out accords together, to be a sine qua non for a settlement of this resolvable conflict a point supported by over two-thirds of Americans of the Jewish faith. Would such a reasonable resolution ever pass the Congress? For more information on the growing pro-peace movements among the American Jewish Community see: Ester Kaplan, The Jewish Divide on Israel, The Nation, June 24, 2004. full: http://votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=119 -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Cobb or Nader?
Counterpunch, August 10, 2004 Crossroads for the California Green Party Will It Be Nader or Cobb? By TODD CHRETIEN In the next couple days, the California Green Party will decide whether or not to hold a state-wide convention to consider putting Nader/Camejo on the ballot. What will the party do? Abraham Lincoln once said, If I can save the union by freeing none of the slaves, I will do it. If I can save the union by freeing some of the slaves, I will do it. And if I must saved the union by freeing all of the slaves, I will do it. In other words, he was confused and he waffled at the beginning of the war. He wasn't sure what to do. As the war dragged on in 1861 and 1862, with the danger of Britain intervening on the side of the South looming over him, Lincoln decided that the only way to win the war was to rally the North to the cause of emancipation and to arm the slaves to fight for their own freedom. Lincoln did not bind his hands over issues of process. He determined that the cause of justice outweighed the inertia of the constitution and took his stand on the side of action. Today, the Green Party of California, as well as that of Vermont, is engaged in a very sharp debate, and it is not about process. It is about the political direction of the party. One group supports David Cobb's nomination and defends the central pillar of his campaign, the smart state strategy. Another group argues that Cobb's nomination was the result of a rigged convention process that defied the will of the majority Greens by choosing Cobb over Nader/Camejo in order to grant backdoor support to John Kerry. Perhaps this would have remained an academic debate about internal Green Party process, but two new facts have re-opened it. First, although it was in motion before the Milwaukee convention, the campaign by the Democratic Party to disenfranchise millions of voters who support Nader/Camejo by employing Florida tactics to keep Nader off the ballot has developed into the most serious attack on democratic elections in the United States since the end of Jim Crow. Second, it has come to light in the past 48 hours that the California state Green Party, according to its own election code, can hold a state nominating convention in order to place a candidate on the ballot. These two facts give California Greens the motive and the opportunity to nominate Nader/Camejo for the California ballot, according to the rules and precedents of previous elections. Most Greens, especially in California, are only just becoming aware of the debate over the Milwaukee convention. The case laid out by Forrest Hill and Carol Miller in their essay Rigged Convention, Divided Party, explaining why the Milwaukee vote was undemocratic will be carefully studied by California Greens. Leading Green Dean Myerson has replied in a lengthy rebuttal to some Green Party lists. However, even some who believe that the rules used in Milwaukee were unfair, but that they could only be reformed next year at the next national convention, are now open to considering changing the California nomination to Nader/Camejo. To begin with, the California Greens can hold a state-wide nominating convention, as the party did in 1992, 1996 and 2000. Holding the state-wide nominating convention will be the best way available at this time to understand the will of the more than 160,000 California rank and file Green Party members in California. The California Green Party has been given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to dramatically raise its profile. Far from being a burden, holding a highly publicized nominating convention (in the days before the lunatic circus called the RNC) will act as a megaphone for the youth and the disenfranchised to hear what the party has to say about the need for an alternative to the two pro-war parties. The convention would take place just as campuses across California are opening session and could be the launching pad for an aggressive recruitment drive to win thousands of young people to the party. Besides the war radicalizing students, Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Democratic majority in Sacramento are ramming through catastrophic cuts to public education, which led to huge walk-outs and protests of state and community college students last spring. These students are alienated from mainstream politics and they are not enthusiastic about Kerry's Bush-lite program. full: http://www.counterpunch.org/chretien08102004.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: nader people might be of greater help to polity in general (of course, this is electoral campaign which, by definition, has narrow focus) by highlighting unequal/unjust ballot access procedures, state by state rules are clear violation of 14th admendment equal protection... The best way to highlight unequal/unjust ballot access procedures is to actually run a campaign that runs afoul of them -- then, there is a practical struggle. Who cares if ballot access procedures are unequal and unjust if there is no candidate other than the Democratic and Republican ones to begin with? At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: carcasses of 'minor' parties across u.s. political landscape Minor parties -- the Liberal Party, the Free Soil Party, etc. -- are destined to die, but they are among the important political arenas through which people network, gain experience, and accumulate knowledge, and I'm interested in what individuals who are trained in struggles that cannot immediately achieve their goals learn and what they will do with what they have learned. We need to keep learning from major failures and minor successes until we encounter objective conditions that may allow us to make use of our experience and knowledge. At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: reform party line is absolutely irrevelevant in states where party has ballot status save two - florida and michigan (drum roll please - so-called 'battlegrounds') It would be ironic if Cobb/LaMarche are on the Green Party ballots in one-party states and Nader/Camejo are on the ballots in battleground states. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
nader goes southwest
Title: nader goes southwest Nader Presidential Campaign Announces Southwest Airlines as its Unofficial Campaign Airline Based on several years of experience with an upstart airline from Texas, the Nader Presidential campaign announces Southwest Airlines as its unofficial campaign airline. "George W. Bush has his Air Force One to under-reimburse for campaign trips. John Kerry has his leased Boeing 757 to tour the country. But we have Southwest Airlines and its entire fleet of aircraft at our disposal," declared independent Presidential candidate, Ralph Nader. "Frugal tickets, pleasant, responsive people, with humor and a desire to say yes, and very interesting passengers to converse with combined, for us, to make this selection," he added. All passengers fly coach on Southwest, as befits a Presidential campaign for the people. No one at Southwest Airlines was contacted about this announcement. Nader had a good word for Southwest Airlines founder, Herb Kelleher. "Mr. Kelleher has demonstrated that the lowest paid chief executive, now chairman of the Board, of any major domestic airline, has produced better service, lower fares, and more profits, in dollars, than the top largest three airlines combined over the past three years. This record comes because he cares about his employees and passengers far more than the kind of compensation packages, contingent stock options, and golden parachutes demanded by his counterparts," said Nader. "'Pay less, get more' is the reverse of so many big corporate CEOs in recent years, who paid themselves more and gave less, if they did not collapse their company (Enron, WorldCom, etc.) outright," Nader declared. In return, the Nader campaign asks nothing more than the ear of management for any signs of airline deterioration that should be reversed. Oh, one more request - keep the roasted peanuts coming. Pretzels just don't do it. http://www.votenader.com/media_press/index.php?cid=146
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/10/04 3:16 PM At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: nader people might be of greater help to polity in general (of course, this is electoral campaign which, by definition, has narrow focus) by highlighting unequal/unjust ballot access procedures, state by state rules are clear violation of 14th admendment equal protection... The best way to highlight unequal/unjust ballot access procedures is to actually run a campaign that runs afoul of them -- then, there is a practical struggle. Who cares if ballot access procedures are unequal and unjust if there is no candidate other than the Democratic and Republican ones to begin with? of course, my point was that nader people have not - and will not - raise equal protection matter (although they'll - no doubt, and rightly so - complain about being exluded from prez debates)... At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: carcasses of 'minor' parties across u.s. political landscape Minor parties -- the Liberal Party, the Free Soil Party, etc. -- are destined to die, but they are among the important political arenas through which people network, gain experience, and accumulate knowledge, and I'm interested in what individuals who are trained in struggles that cannot immediately achieve their goals learn and what they will do with what they have learned. We need to keep learning from major failures and minor successes until we encounter objective conditions that may allow us to make use of our experience and knowledge. neither of parties cited above would seem to be good examples of your explanation (wonder how many folks are even familiar with either)... free soilers (1848-54) were northern elite splinters from dem party who had come to oppose slavery for economic reasons (in contrast to moral abolitionists), they desired 'free land' for homesteading (19th century economic elites often manipulated egalitarian rhetoric of homesteading for financial gain by paying people to occupy land for them) while southern slaver class needed more land to perpetuate slave-based planatation system... free soil platform was ambivalent document in which anti-slavery plank was followed by statement that congress did not have authority to interfere with slavery within state boundaries, but then party slogan 'free soil, free speech, free labor, free men' was contradictory... interestingly, some complained that martin van buren's (former u.s. prez, 1837-40) 1848 prez campaign played 'spoiler' in splitting dem votes - van buren received about 10% of 'popular vote') and allowing whig zachary taylor to be elected (taylor died in office under somewhat suspicious circumstances, his body was exhumed within last decade to look into possibility of arsenic poisoning, test results said no, but michael parenti (that cper/milosevic supporter/conspiracy theorist!) suggests otherwise in _new political science_ article a few years back)... 1850 compromise weakened cause, party got about 5% of vote in 1852 prez election, dissolved itself shortly after, members dirfted into newly formed rep party... re. liberal party, suppose you mean new york liberal party as it is only one of any significance (if one considers it as such) that i'm aware of, origins in american labor split at end of ww2 over whether or not commies should be allowed to play a role in alp, anti-commie labor leaders opponents of such a role founded liberal party, so party had organized labor (of a cold war sort) support early on which manifest itself in endorsement of truman in 48 made possible by new york's 'fusion' ballot status... ny liberal party went on to endorse/nominate dem party candidate in every prez election except 1980 when it supported john anderson, party also gave endorsements to dem candidates for u.s senate from ny except for its support of 'liberal' republican jacob javits, some suggest that party's support of javits - who lost to alphonse d'mato in rep primary - split dem/lib vote in 1980 between javits and dem elizabeth holtzman allowing d'mato to win... what are lessons... At 1:07 PM -0400 8/9/04, Michael Hoover wrote: reform party line is absolutely irrevelevant in states where party has ballot status save two - florida and michigan (drum roll please - so-called 'battlegrounds') It would be ironic if Cobb/LaMarche are on the Green Party ballots in one-party states and Nader/Camejo are on the ballots in battleground states. Yoshie greens have prez ballot line in florida, parties have to hold national nominating convention to qualify, state went from most difficult access law in country to one more equitable a few years ago via initiative vote spearheaded largely by libertarian party with help from some other minor parties, including green, reform, socialist... however, my point was that nader's use of reform endorsement is politics as usual... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad
Re: nader goes southwest
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/10/04 10:01 PM Nader Presidential Campaign Announces Southwest Airlines as its Unofficial Campaign Airline Nader had a good word for Southwest Airlines founder, Herb Kelleher. wonder what nader thinks of kelleher's $47,500 to rep national committee this year and $2000 to bush campaign... wonder what nader thinks of southwest helping ins detain 'illegal' immigrants at various airports... wonder why nader didn't mention that about 90% of southwest employees are unionized (seems that would be good reason for selection), of course, company began with no unions and implemented 'cooperative culture' environment (via esop) and 'cross-utilization' (allowing management to take workers from one area and use them temporarily elsewhere) of employees prior to collective bargaining, these features have remained prominent parts of southwest's management-labor relations, both of which serve to increase labor productivity and hold down labor costs... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
retry - first attempt seems to have been sent as attachment for some reason, sorry... mh [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/08/04 5:03 PM Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:04:28 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party The nomination of David Cobb as the Green Party presidential candidate in Milwaukee was due to a well organized campaign to turn a minority view in the Green Party into what appeared as a majority decision at the convention. 1. A grossly undemocratic process was used at the national convention of the US Green Party, as described in the article, Rigged Convention Divides Green Party, by Carol Miller and Forrest Hill (see www.greensfornader.net); 2 Each state Green Party should have the right to nominate candidates supported by a majority of its members because the results of the national Green Party Convention do not represent the views of a majority of Greens in California, indeed, they represent the views of a small minority; 4. The Democratic Party has devoted huge resources to harass canvassers, to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot in California 6. Nader and Camejo are the only candidates supporting Green values that have a chance of getting in the national televised debates. ; i've indicated in previous posts that i'm not big green party person while also thinking that greens need to wean themselves from nader, what follows are pulp musings... above is smarmy, smelly stuff that has long left rotting carcasses of 'minor' parties across u.s. political landscape, not to mention turning-off folks outside of organization (assuming anyone notices) and making contribution to turnout decline/civic disengagement/withdrawal from public realm/whatever else likes of robert putnam and social capital types call non-participation (how about alienation and cynicism)... circumstance reminds of buchanan-hagelin/2000 reform party implosion which left rp with ballot status in about 1/3rd of states where it had previously qualified... re. reform party (at least one of them anyway), nader received 'endorsement' (not nomination) back in may by way of telephone conference call, 4-5 people had 'qualified' to have their 'candidacies' debated by national/state committee people - wonder how democratic process of choosing members of such committees is - for a couple of hours one evening, nader was 'overwhelming' choice although i don't recall any actual vote totals being released, other names were complete unknowns, reform party people chose nader because he offers opportunity for party to get attention that it otherwise would not get (of course, kind of pub that buchanan debacle produced i suppose they'd rather do without)... reform party line is absolutely irrevelevant in states where party has ballot status save two - florida and michigan (drum roll please - so-called 'battlegrounds'), media likely to pay attention to nader in fla and mich - 'spoiler', 'darth' nader, blah, blah, blah, this is pure instrumentalist politics of mainstream sort (that's less criticism than it is observation, btw) on nader's part and explains why his campaign was so concerned about flap *between* michigan reform parties that appeared as if it might result in his name being kept off reform line (don't know if matter has been resolved)... re. dems trying to keep nader off ballots, obviously disgusting (didn't someone long ago say something to effect that all political issues in u.s. wind up in court)... nader people might be of greater help to polity in general (of course, this is electoral campaign which, by definition, has narrow focus) by highlighting unequal/unjust ballot access procedures, state by state rules are clear violation of 14th admendment equal protection... re. miller and hill article cited above, they characterize primaries as 'will of voters', u.s. is only political democracy in which party nominees are chosen this way (and in this instance, winners were placeholding), primaries are one legacy of not-so progressive era, example of peudo-democratization, early 20th century 'reformers' who pushed primaries claimed they were giving ' power to the people' as new procedure would empower 'ordinary citizens' at expense of party bosses, what happened was that such bosses were largely supplanted by activists (who, of course, have always exercised more influence than 'ordinary' people because they participate and their views are more intense)... re. each state party nominating its own candidates, silliness of this for prez election should be obvious... re. nader/camejo ticket, how democratic is it for person at top of ticket to choose vp candidate (i realize that nader's candidacy is independent one but that actually serves to make my point), party conventions chose vp candidates until fdr in 1940s, today, prez nominees announce their choices and conventions accept them (btw: reform party endorsed nader, not nader/camaejo, as far i know)... re. prez debates
Re: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
---Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/08/04 5:03 PM Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:04:28 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party The nomination of David Cobb as the Green Party presidential candidate in Milwaukee was due to a well organized campaign to turn a minority view in the Green Party into what appeared as a majority decision at the convention. 1. A grossly undemocratic process was used at the national convention of the US Green Party, as described in the article, Rigged Convention Divides Green Party, by Carol Miller and Forrest Hill (see www.greensfornader.net); 2 Each state Green Party should have the right to nominate candidates supported by a majority of its members because the results of the national Green Party Convention do not represent the views of a majority of Greens in California, indeed, they represent the views of a small minority; 4. The Democratic Party has devoted huge resources to harass canvassers, to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot in California 6. Nader and Camejo are the only candidates supporting Green values that have a chance of getting in the national televised debates. ; i've indicated in previous posts that i'm not big green party person while also thinking that greens need to wean themselves from nader, what follows are pulp musings... above is smarmy, smelly stuff that has long left rotting carcasses of 'minor' parties across u.s. political landscape, not to mention turning-off folks outside of organization (assuming anyone notices) and making contribution to turnout decline/civic disengagement/withdrawal from public realm/whatever else likes of robert putnam and social capital types call non-participation (how about alienation and cynicism)... circumstance reminds of buchanan-hagelin/2000 reform party implosion which left rp with ballot status in about 1/3rd of states where it had previously qualified... re. reform party (at least one of them anyway), nader received 'endorsement' (not nomination) back in may by way of telephone conference call, 4-5 people had 'qualified' to have their 'candidacies' debated by national/state committee people - wonder how democratic process of choosing members of such committees is - for a couple of hours one evening, nader was 'overwhelming' choice although i don't recall any actual vote totals being released, other names were complete unknowns, reform party people chose nader because he offers opportunity for party to get attention that it otherwise would not get (of course, kind of pub that buchanan debacle produced i suppose they'd rather do without)... reform party line is absolutely irrevelevant in states where party has ballot status save two - florida and michigan (drum roll please - so-called 'battlegrounds'), media likely to pay attention to nader in fla and mich - 'spoiler', 'darth' nader, blah, blah, blah, this is pure instrumentalist politics of mainstream sort (that's less criticism than it is observation, btw) on nader's part and explains why his campaign was so concerned about flap *between* michigan reform parties that appeared as if it might result in his name being kept off reform line (don't know if matter has been resolved)... re. dems trying to keep nader off ballots, obviously disgusting (didn't someone long ago say something to effect that all political issues in u.s. wind up in court)... nader people might be of greater help to polity in general (of course, this is electoral campaign which, by definition, has narrow focus) by highlighting unequal/unjust ballot access procedures, state by state rules are clear violation of 14th admendment equal protection... re. miller and hill article cited above, they characterize primaries as 'will of voters', u.s. is only political democracy in which party nominees are chosen this way (and in this instance, winners were placeholding), primaries are one legacy of not-so progressive era, example of peudo-democratization, early 20th century 'reformers' who pushed primaries claimed they were giving ' power to the people' as new procedure would empower 'ordinary citizens' at expense of party bosses, what happened was that such bosses were largely supplanted by activists (who, of course, have always exercised more influence than 'ordinary' people because they participate and their views are more intense)... re. each state party nominating its own candidates, silliness of this for prez election should be obvious... re. nader/camejo ticket, how democratic is it for person at top of ticket to choose vp candidate (i realize that nader's candidacy
Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party (Sign and Forward This)
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:04:28 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party Greens For Nader Update: Rigged Convention Divides Green Party 2004.08.08 00:04:27 http://greensfornader.net/archives/2004/08/rigged_conventi_1.html Please forward and act immediately::: The nomination of David Cobb as the Green Party presidential candidate in Milwaukee was due to a well organized campaign to turn a minority view in the Green Party into what appeared as a majority decision at the convention. To correct this injustice, the Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of California will vote on Monday August 9 on whether to hold a Special General Assembly to let California Greens decide if they want to put Nader/Camejo on the our ballot line. If you believe that the Green Party should continue to challenge the two-party duopoly and should not compromise it principles, then please sign the following proposal and email it to one (or all) of the CC members listed below. Time is of the essence! Peggy Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sharon Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gerry Gras [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Borenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jo Chamberlain [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matt Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alex Brideau III [EMAIL PROTECTED] PROPOSAL TO HOLD A SPECIAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PUT NADER/CAMEJO ON THE GREEN PARTY BALLOT IN CALIFORNIA Whereas: 1. A grossly undemocratic process was used at the national convention of the US Green Party, as described in the article, Rigged Convention Divides Green Party, by Carol Miller and Forrest Hill (see www.greensfornader.net); 2 Each state Green Party should have the right to nominate candidates supported by a majority of its members because the results of the national Green Party Convention do not represent the views of a majority of Greens in California, indeed, they represent the views of a small minority; 3. An overwhelming majority of Greens in the United States and California support the presidential ticket of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo; 4. The Democratic Party has devoted huge resources to harass canvassers, to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot in California 5. Ralph Nader would hold fundraisers to support local candidates if nominated by the Green Party of California,. 6. Nader and Camejo are the only candidates supporting Green values that have a chance of getting in the national televised debates. 7. The Green Party of California is a recognized Party in California and has a ballot line; Therefore be it resolved that: We the undersign urge the Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of California to show leadership and hold a Special General Assembly too place Ralph Nader on the California state ballot for President of the United States and Peter Miguel Camejo on the California state ballot for Vice President of the United States. Signed -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Nader 2004 Nader 2000
Nader 2004 Nader 2000 (The best kept secret of this presidential election year is that Ralph Nader has been polling better in 2004 than 2000, despite the relentless barrage of attacks by Anybody But Nader intellectuals. Compare the Gallop survey results in 2000 and 2004. Intellectuals who aid and abet the Democratic Party's crime of excluding Nader from the ballots and disenfranchising working-class voters on the left are committing the same crime as those who aid and abet the disenfranchisement of working-class voters -- especially working-class Black voters -- through criminal disenfranchisement laws. After all, voting rights mean nothing if voters are allowed to vote for only the candidates pre-approved by the power elite.) [Full Text with charts: Nader 2004 Nader 2000, http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/08/nader-2004-nader-2000.html.] -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Liberal yuppies go ballistic over Nader petition
Counterpunch, August 5, 2004 The Dem Plot Against Nader Florida Comes to California By TODD CHRETIEN Having spent the last month helping organize the petition drive to get Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo on the ballot in California, I'd like to make two observations and some comments. 1. There are an appalling number of liberals or progressives who are willing to scream and spit in your face (literally) when you ask them if they'd like to sign a petition so that people who want to vote for a candidate who opposes the occupation of Iraq and the Patriot Act will have that right. Here's a typical conversation: Petitioner: Excuse me, are you a registered voter in California? We're trying to get Ralph Nader on the ballot. Liberal Yuppie: No, no, no!!! You cost Gore the election! F**k you, b**tch! Petitioner: We're not asking you to vote for him, just help us get on the ballot, so that people who would like to vote for him will have that right. Liberal Yuppie: I don't care about your rights. You're going to hell! Apologies to the faint at heart for the strong language, but for all of Norman Solomon's conspiracy theories about Nader being a Republican tool, the reality is that the less than 5% of campaign contributions Nader has received from individual Republicans (mostly old classmates and small Arab-American businessmen who voted for Bush in 200, but now disgusted with Kerry and Bush alike) has absolutely no influence on the campaign. The real story is that hundreds of left-wing and progressive people spent the last month collecting tens of thousands of signatures from ordinary people. We didn't go to Beverly Hills or Point Reyes. We went to Oakland and San Leandro and Stockton and East LA and Chico and Sacramento and the Mission in San Franciso and Santa Cruz and Davis and Butte County and San Diego and everywhere in between. I'd like to send a warm thanks to everyone here and across the country who has stood their ground petitioning against the anti-democratic, and often racist and sexist abuse. 2. There is an inverse relationship between youth, poverty and oppression on the one hand and hostility to Nader on the other. Petitioners encountered the MOST hostility in more middle-class areas, where indignant liberal yuppies felt perfectly comfortable yelling all sorts of vulgar insults. In neighborhoods that were poorer, more working class and more multi-racial, petitioners got a much better reception. Same goes for younger voters. And in the working class areas, even those who did not want to sign the petitions tended to be more respectful and support our right to speak our minds. These are generalizations. There are many better off progressive people who support Nader and there are many young, poor and people of color who do not. But the trend is unmistakable. What can we learn from these facts? The Democratic Party survives off the passivity and demoralization of the poorest and most oppressed sections of the working class. The Democrats do nothing to challenge the indifference of the poorest people and youth in the United States to the outcomes of elections, because they benefit from it. The biggest threat to the Democratic Party's status as an alternating ruling party is an active, confident and organized working class. The submission of most of the left in the United States to the mantra of Anybody But Bush is of enormous importance to maintaining this subjegation. If we held an election tomorrow in which everyone (whether or not they are registered to vote) voted on Bush's, Kerry's and Nader's platforms, Nader would get 20% or 30% of the vote, if not more. Would that cost Kerry the election? Probably, but it would also terrify Bush and paralyze the main stream parties' capacity to march lock-step down the road of war, prisons and corporate power. Of course, there WON'T be that kind of election this year. Why not? Because the Democrats and the corporate media are doing their best to stamp out the challenge from Nader. They are determined to destroy any left-wing opposition today and effectively cripple it for the future. Unfortunately, they have enlisted many progressive political people in this campaign. If they succeed in driving Nader/Camejo from the field, then the likelihood of an election like that EVER taking place will be set back tremendously. In the meantime, the damage being done to the Green Party is accumulating. I've talked to dozens of Greens who say, I can't believe David Cobb is encouraging people to vote for Kerry. What's the point of being a Green. I'm quitting the party, I'm going with Nader. Cobb likes to talk about growing the Green Party. But prominently displayed on his website is an essay by Medea Benjamin and others called, An Open Letter to Progressives: Vote Cobb, Vote Kerry. No doubt, this vote Kerry line will earn the Green Party thanks from the pro-war forces. But it will lose something much more valuable. Namely, the respect of people who are looking for an alternative John
Re: Liberal yuppies go ballistic over Nader petition
Devine, James wrote: Todd Chretien writes: The Democrats do nothing to challenge the indifference of the poorest people and youth in the United States to the outcomes of elections, because they benefit from it. The biggest threat to the Democratic Party's status as an alternating ruling party is an active, confident and organized working class. The submission of most of the left in the United States to the mantra of Anybody But Bush is of enormous importance to maintaining this subjegation. Though this is accurate (as is the critique of the DP's anti-democratic ways), it misses an important dimension of the middle-class white ABB movement, i.e., the culture war stuff. Though it's very true that the DP doesn't want organized and class-conscious workers, there's a big component of the working class that doesn't want abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. The yuppies that Chretien discusses are typically more in favor of those, and are deeply worried about who Bush will appoint to the Supreme Court (someone _worse_ than Clarence Thomas?) I would prefer to speak of different sectors of one working class in formation, since most of those yuppies would be -- or since the 2000 crash are already -- in great trouble if their paychecks cease for a few months. And those culture wars need, eventually, to be won _inside_ the working class. AND that will be rather difficult to do so long as a large number of leftists remain tied to the DP. Carrol P.S. Many ABBs affirm that they have no allegiance to the DP but believe that 2004 represents a special case; that one can work for Kerry now but return to the struggle against the DP after the election. For some no doubt this is true. But it seems to me at least that as the months have passed those ABBs have increasingly used arguments that simply do not differentiate between now and any other election past or future -- i.e. are arguments which will equally apply when a run-of-the-mill DP reactionary is running against a run-of-the-mill RP reactionary in future elections. ABB is turning into The DP Now and Forever. And that brings us back to Chretien's point, that the DP is essentially anti-democratic, and any movement for democracy in the U.S. must see the DP as its chief enemy. Hence my increasing irritation with (most) ABBs. P.S. 2 This irritation does not extend to the 20 to 30 rabid Kerry supporters in the local anti-war group: they are just getting started in non-electoral political activity and take supporting the DP for granted. They will learn. But the ABBs who publish in various left journals and on maillists are a different matter -- they are (supposedly) not political amateurs or new to left activity.
Re: Liberal yuppies go ballistic over Nader petition
CC writes: I would prefer to speak of different sectors of one working class in formation, since most of those "yuppies" would be -- or since the 2000 crash are already -- in great trouble if their paychecks cease for a few months. especially if the housing bubble pops... And those "culture wars" need, eventually, to be won _inside_ the working class. AND that will be rather difficult to do so long as a large number of leftists remain tied to the DP. This suggests that, for clarity's sake, future discussions of the DP and ABB should make it clear whether we're talking about (1) working within the DP; or (2) voting for Kerry. as for me, I agree that working within the DP is absolutely the wrong way to go. What we need is an anti-war movement and other anti-establishmentarian movements. As for issue #2, voting is a very personal decision -- and very powerless. A lot of people here in California will be follow Molly Ivins' 2000 advice and will be voting for Nader (or Leonard Peltier) precisely _because_ it will have no effect on the actual election. It's a mystery to me why all those "yuppies" in California are so adamantly anti-Nader! Jim Devine
Re: Liberal yuppies go ballistic over Nader petition
Devine, James wrote: This suggests that, for clarity's sake, future discussions of the DP and ABB should make it clear whether we're talking about (1) working within the DP; or (2) voting for Kerry. as for me, I agree that working within the DP is absolutely the wrong way to go. What we need is an anti-war movement and other anti-establishmentarian movements. As for issue #2, voting is a very personal decision -- and very powerless. I would agree. And indeed, though I have sometimes been careless in making the distinction, it is _political activity_, not voting, that is of interest to me. Voting seems more or less a symbolic activity in the dark appreciated only by the voter him/herself. I couldn't care less what private symbols voters send to themselves. Carrol
nader to lobbyist
Title: nader to lobbyist Nader Tells Toby Moffett: "Stop making false statements concerning allegations of Republican support." Rebuts False Allegations of Republican Support Describes Moffett As a "Corporate Lobbyist," Not a Nader's Raider Moffett is Part of the Problem of Corporate Control of Government Urges Kerry/Edwards to Debate Nader/Camejo on the Issues August 5, 2004 Anthony J. (Toby) Moffett The Livingston Group 499 South Capitol St SW # 600 Washington, DC 20003 Dear Mr. Moffett: I am writing to request that you stop making false statements concerning allegations of Republican support for the Nader/Camejo Campaign. I have said repeatedly that I am seeking votes and support from Republicans who support my candidacy, but not from Republicans, organized or otherwise, seeking to use my campaign for manipulative purposes. As you well know, your Democratic Party has taken many millions of dollars from favor-seeking Republicans hedging both sides of the party aisles. In fact, 2000 exit polls showed that approximately 25% of those who voted for the Green ticket were registered Republicans. Over the years I have worked with individual Republicans on issues of mutual concern - e.g. securities fraud, environmental protection, corporate crime, and corporate welfare. In addition, many people supporting our candidacy in 2004 supported President Bush in 2000, including members of the Reform Party. Indeed, many people who supported President Bush in 2000 are not happy with the Patriot Act's undermining of the Constitution, the fabrications and lies that led to war, the record budget deficits, the sovereignty infringing trade agreements, outsourcing of jobs, and a host of other issues. So, it is not surprising that 5% of our major donors are Republicans. Regarding support from Republicans helping to get Nader/Camejo on the ballot: the three most common claims come from Michigan, Nevada and Oregon - all three are false. In Michigan, our campaign turned in our signatures to protect our rights in court because we have been endorsed by the Reform Party, which has a ballot line. The signature-gathering campaign by others was not consistent with our strategy, and we had nothing to do with it. In Nevada, there were unsubstantiated allegations that Steve Wark helped our campaign get on the ballot. However, we have never had any contact with Mr. Wark, never received any donations from him, and neither has our signature gathering firm. This is a story that is unsubstantiated, and, as best we can see, completely false. In Oregon, the most important activity of a major party was the Democrats spoiling our ballot access convention by organizing and sending Democrats in - to fill out the auditorium, undermine the convention by swelling the numbers, and then not sign the petitions. While there was talk of Republican support in the media, we saw no evidence of it on the ground. It is amazing that the media still describes you as a Nader's-Raider - Toby, that was thirty years ago. Today, you are a corporate lobbyist with a firm whose clients are military contractors, telecom giants, and industry trade associations. You were a former vice president with Monsanto and now are a partner with Robert Livingston, a reactionary Republican who was about to serve as the Speaker of the House until he resigned. If the media focused on who you really are - a corporate lobbyist - it would not be surprising that you oppose our candidacy , since our focus is challenging the corporate domination of Washington, DC and its erosive impact on domestic and foreign policy. While Nader/Camejo would be happy to debate your candidates - John Kerry and John Edwards - on the issues, I reject your falsehoods, which are part of a coordinated Democratic dirty tricks campaign to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot. Stop knowingly misleading the public and stop trying to undermine democracy by limiting the choice of voters to two candidates representing, in varying degrees, two corporate political parties. Sincerely, Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader on the DP convention
The Democratic Party-Party Is Over by Ralph Nader, votenader.org The Democratic Party-Party Convention is over, and its singular memory will be its predictable banality and the commercialism that mostly financed it. Historically, conventions were newsworthy because there was a struggle over who would receive the nomination and what the Parties would stand for in their platforms. Today, there is a coronation for the nominee and inquiries about what would be on the menus of the 250 parties that corporations and their smooth-tongued lobbyists were throwing for their favorably-positioned congressional bigwigs. Inside the festooned Convention Center there were dozens of speeches - all pre-viewed, sanitized and edited down to the last minute on teleprompters by the standby Kerry censors. When Al Sharpton departed from the script for a couple of minutes, you would have thought their wedding cake was burning. Fifteen thousand reporters spent five days looking for stories - any stories - that qualified as news or soft features from the Party, its 4,000-plus delegates, and the swarm of corporate backslappers. It was not difficult to describe the wine, whiskey, music, and obvious temptations - in return for the implicit political favors - that the drug, insurance, banking, chemical, oil, media, and computer companies presented to the attending politicians. For this business bacchanalia the taxpayers were required to pay the Democratic party thirteen million dollars (and later the same amount for the Republican Party Convention). A few years ago, Congress - namely the two Parties - decided that these political Conventions were educational in nature and worthy of your tax dollars. Around, over, and under the Convention premises hovered a security army of police, detectives, troops, and armed, airborne, and land-based technology worthy of a Marine division. Thwarting a possible terrorist attack was one reason for over tens of millions of dollars spent - the other objective was to keep the people from protesting anywhere near the Fleet Center Convention. The people - voters, taxpayers, workers - were detained in a free speech zone (catch the irony) that looked like an ad hoc concentration camp encirclement. The intimidating zone was distant enough not to be convenient to the electronic media placements. In a phrase, the Democratic Party did what it does so regularly in Washington - it shut out the people, who resigned themselves to social justice gatherings elsewhere in Boston. But the people should have been smarter. They should have had contrasting parties held by dispossessed workers, defrauded consumers, medical malpractice victims, fleeced taxpayers, small farmers, and polluted communities with open invitations for the politicians to attend. The media likes contrasts, especially when very few of these Congressional delegates would have left their lavish business bashes to greet the Americans they court and flatter only at election time - from distant stages and 30 second television ads. The Democratic Convention did have its amusing moments. Bill Clinton didnt charge his $200,000 per-speech fee for his speech to the convention and the viewing public. The National Association of Broadcasters - representing those television stations who use your public airwaves free and decide 24 hours a day what is allowed to air on our property - held a huge party for Congressman Ed Markey. Mr. Markey started his Congressional career as a major outspoken critic of the broadcasting industry. He has been much quieter in recent years. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Dems work against Nader in SC
I'm a long time lurker on marxmail, reading just about every day for over a year. I was moved to forward this Charlotte Observer article (now in the registrant-only archives) on Democratic Party efforts to keep Nader off the ballot in my home state of South Carolina. Kerry has no shot of winning SC of course, no way. Bush will carry that state by 20%. Nader got almost 2% of the SC vote in 2000. Obviously, the mere idea of Nader/Camejo campaign can't be suffered. The Dems are out to limit choice first, and save themselves the trouble of responding to a leftist/populist campaign, even in deepest Bush country. Interestingly, Cobb and Socialist Party nominee Walt Brown will be on the ballot since the Greens and the local United Citizens Party (which independently nominated Brown) have automatic ballot access. They can't be kicked off prior to the election. I'd bet the Dems will ignore them in the safe assumption that no one will know who Cobb and Brown are. Neither are mentioned on the article below. Yours, Scott W. - Posted on Fri, Jul. 30, 2004 Groups in S.C. attack petitions favoring Nader Signatures questioned; effort could keep the hopeful off state's ballot http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/9278787.htm?1c HEATHER VOGELL Staff Writer Planning to look for Ralph Nader on the S.C. ballot in this November's presidential election? You may not find him. Groups of S.C. residents and attorneys are questioning pro-Nader petitions in various counties -- including York, election workers confirmed Thursday. If the groups convince officials to toss out more than 1,000 of the 11,000 signatures supporting Nader statewide, he could be booted from the ballot. Simon Demory, Nader's S.C. coordinator, said it's alarming that state Democrats are working to suppress Nader's candidacy. Personally, I think it's a very, very scary thing, he said. That's a pretty dangerous precedent to set. Organizers said they are trying only to make sure the signatures are legally valid, because they could affect the election. If he doesn't have 10,000, he shouldn't be on the ballot, said Charleston attorney Peter Wilborn, who is challenging Nader's petition in Charleston County. Similar efforts are also taking place in Michigan and Arizona. Nader supporters filed a federal lawsuit in Michigan this week to secure a spot on the ballot. Democratic leaders nationwide are trying to avoid a repeat of the 2000 election, when Al Gore supporters complained Nader siphoned off votes that could have vaulted the Democrat into the White House. This time around, Nader is refusing to step aside despite intense pressure from the party. Joe Erwin, S.C. Democratic Party chairman, said the S.C. groups are working independently of the state party, which is forbidden from seeking to keep a candidate off the ballot. Last week, a request for volunteers to keep Ralph Nader off the South Carolina ballot ran in the newsletter of the S.C. Democratic Leadership Council, a Democratic think tank. But its director, Phil Noble, said Thursday that his group didn't sponsor the item. Wilborn and another organizer said they are both Democrats but aren't party officers and aren't mounting challenges on the party's behalf. Wilborn said his group found problems in Charleston that included illegible signatures and signatures from people not on the county's voter rolls. Columbia Attorney Jeff Bloom said his group has filed challenges in 10 to 12 counties that received pro-Nader petitions. He said that after combing through samples of signatures, volunteers found 25 to 50 percent were invalid. Nader received about 1 1/2 percent of the S.C. vote in the 2000 election, amounting to 20,200 ballots. President Bush beat Gore by 220,376 votes statewide. On July 15, Nader's supporters submitted a roughly 11,000-signature petition to the S.C. Election Commission. Bloom said rumors are circulating that Republicans are behind some of the signature-collection drives. But S.C. GOP Executive Director Luke Byars said he hasn't heard anything about Republicans organizing for Nader. Republicans don't have to rely on Ralph Nader for a win in South Carolina, he said. I think we can handle that all by ourselves. -30- -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
NY Times profile on Nader
NY Times, August 2, 2004 Convictions Intact, Nader Soldiers On By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE SANTA MONICA, Calif., Aug. 1 - To Ralph Nader, the Democratic convention in Boston was a hollow charade that made Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, seem more like President Bush than ever. He said it gave him no reason to drop out of the race, even if he costs Mr. Kerry the election in November, as many believe he cost Al Gore in 2000. This isn't unity, Mr. Nader scoffed in an interview here on Saturday, referring to the message from the Democratic convention. This is repressed conformity in order to create the show. He called the Democrats a decadent party and, in a reference to Mr. Gore's populist war cry in 2000, accused Mr. Gore of taking my language away from me and costing me more votes than I cost him. Mr. Kerry, he noted, voted for the war in Iraq, would not put a deadline on withdrawing American troops, voted for the Patriot Act and, he said, won't touch the bloated, corrupt military budget. So Mr. Nader, who does not concede that he has little chance of winning the presidency, is preparing for battles ahead - for ballot access in most states (he is on the ballot in six states so far, including Florida), for credentials to the Republican convention this month (he was denied credentials to the Democratic convention), and for a seat at the table in the fall debates, which requires a standing of at least 15 percent in national polls. Andrew Kohut, the director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, said that Mr. Nader, who won 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000, was polling at about 3 percent in most national polls now but could spell trouble for Mr. Kerry in some swing states. While Mr. Nader digs in his heels, the Democrats are trying to sideline him. The party has enlisted Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, who has declared an extraordinary emergency to stomp out Nader votes. And some former associates of Mr. Nader are organizing an extensive, well-financed national campaign against him. Organizers include Toby Moffett, a former congressman from Connecticut and onetime Nader Raider, who lost a close race for the Senate in 1982 after his former boss endorsed his opponent. Mr. Moffett, now a lobbyist in Washington, worked against Mr. Nader in six states in 2000, an informal effort that he now calls amateurish. With that experience under his belt, he said, we're vowing not to let it happen again. Mr. Moffett and others from labor and feminist organizations spent their time at the Democratic convention coordinating six or eight anti-Nader groups. Calling themselves United Progressives for Victory, they are raising money through an independent political committee known as a 527, named for the section of the I.R.S. code that governs it, and are working with other 527's that are already identifying sympathetic voters. (By law, such committees can raise unlimited amounts of money but cannot coordinate with the Kerry campaign.) The group is armed with a poll conducted by Stanley Greenberg, who was President Bill Clinton's pollster. The group includes Roy Neel, a former Gore associate who worked for Mr. Dean and is now preparing the computer model for finding the 2.8 million people who voted for Mr. Nader in 2000 and might vote for him again. Mr. Moffett said there was no chance that Mr. Nader would drop out, so the only way to stop him from throwing the election to Mr. Bush is to discourage his supporters. Mr. Nader's determination to stay in the contest was evident on Friday night in Los Angeles, when Michael Moore, the filmmaker, who backed Mr. Nader in 2000, appeared with him on the HBO program Real Time with Bill Maher. Mr. Moore and Mr. Maher dropped to their knees to beg Mr. Nader to drop out, with the audience cheering them on. Mr. Nader was unmoved, saying only, We're going to help defeat George W. Bush and dashing off the set at his first opportunity. Nader supporters, Mr. Greenberg's polling shows, are generally older and angrier [I guess that explains me!] than other voters. They are fiercely against globalization and corporate dominance, and they are largely indifferent to social issues like abortion and gay marriage. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/politics/campaign/02nader.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Nader says why
Title: Nader says why Ralph Nader, featured in special Democratic Convention edition of The Hill, sending a clear message to the corporate political duopoly. The Hill June 29, 2004 OP-ED I'm staying in the race. Here's why. Get used to it. By Ralph Nader Washington, DC is corporate-controlled territory. You can see it in Congress, the regulatory agencies, the Departments, the presidency - corporations rule the nation. The power of corporate influence affects every aspect of our domestic policy as well as our foreign policy, pushing the United States into wars in countries with resources the corporate engine needs and into trade agreements that weaken U.S. sovereignty and undermine environmental, labor, and consumer rights. The mass concentrations of power, privilege, wealth, technology, and immunity have placed their rampaging global quest for maximum profits in the way of progress, justice, and opportunity for the very millions of workers who made possible these corporate profits but who are falling behind, excluded, and expendable. Their labors have gone unrequited as these unpatriotic corporations abandon our country and shift industries abroad, along with what is left of their allegiance to our country and community. As a result, jobs are being shipped overseas to China, where a despotic regime forbids trade unions from negotiating fair wages. This loss of jobs leads to a downward spiral in wages in the United States, where today one out of four full-time workers is now paid less than $8.75 an hour - less than an individual, and certainly a family, can live on. Lobbyists from Wal-Mart and McDonalds ensure that living wage legislation goes nowhere in Congress. Corporatism has turned federal and state departments and agencies into indentured servants for taxpayer-funded subsidies and budget-busting lucrative contracts. Middle-level and top-level corporate executives become mid-level and top-level government regulators and then return to their corporations. The superficially regulated become the regulators and then become the regulated again. Through their revolving-door officials, thousands of Political Action Committees, donations from executives, day-to-day lobbying by trade associations, company lobbies, and corporate law firms, corporations dominate the actions of government. There has been a resistant corporate crime wave that has looted and drained trillions of dollars from millions of workers, their pensions, and from small investors. Has the President supplied the required law enforcement resources for action? Scarcely. Has Congress investigated this massive crime wave and demanded action? Barely. As CNN's Lou Dobbs reports regularly, very few of these bosses have been brought to justice and jail. Corporate tax contributions as a percent of the overall federal revenue stream have been declining for fifty years: once 30% of our income, they now stand at 7.4%, despite massive record profits. President Harry Truman first proposed universal health care in 1955. We still don't have it. Instead we have a wasteful health care system - where 25% of the costs are spent on redundant and unnecessary bureaucracy because it is built on inefficient profit-driven health insurance industry - and an increasingly bill-gouging network of HMO's and hospitals. The United States spends far more on health care than any other country in the world but ranks only 37th in the overall quality of health care it provides, according to the World Health Organization. The U.S. is the only industrialized country that does not provide universal health care. More than 44.3 million Americans have no health insurance, and tens of millions more are underinsured. Each year, 18,000 people die in the U.S. because of lack of health care, according to the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine. Why doesn't the government face up to this issue? Because the healthcare sellers and health insurance industries have donated to politicians to ensure the outcome. A recent highlight of corporate influence over government was the prescription drug bill. The bill was a big profit maker for the drug companies. They invested $150 million in lobbying the government and in return got a $400 billion drug bill. Once again, the corporations win - the people lose. In a few years investigative journalists will report how many people died because they could not afford life-saving medicine. The U.S. military-industrial complex continues to build for Soviet-era enemies that no longer exist. The defense budget, which now accounts for half of the operating spending of the federal government, is driven by weapons procurement for million dollar missiles, expensive airplanes costing tens of millions each, and atomic submarines costing much more. How are these decisions made? The weapons industry comes forward with plans and ideas and then coordinates a lobbying campaign on Congress. Presently, global corporations are bent
more nader to moore
Title: more nader to moore Hey Michael, Where's Your Past? The saga of Michael the Second continues. From a stalwart collaborator before huge rallies in our 2000 Nader/LaDuke campaign to a puzzling sidelines posture, to an endorsement of Wesley Clark, you have perplexed more than a few of your admirers. Now you have declared in the June 24, 2004 issue of USA Today that you hope to have a significant impact on the 4 to 6% who now say they are going to vote for Ralph to vote for Kerry. Wow! That's a long way from Michael of Flint and Michael of Washington, DC. You are some traveler. On The Charlie Rose Show last Thursday you repeated the false statement that I promised to avoid the close states in 2000 and therefore you broke away from the campaign in the last month and urged a vote for Gore. Strange - you were berating Democrats before nearly 10,000 people at our MCI Rally on November 5 - two days before the election. If you would like to see a copy of the tape of your speech let me know. And, you campaigned with us in some of those close states. I have called you on this false assertion regarding the close states yet you keep repeating the falsehood. Our 2000 Campaign was a 50 state run, (and I campaigned in all 50 states) from the beginning, a point repeated again and again, even though I spent 28 days in California and only 2 in Florida. In my last message to Michael the Second I mistakenly believed that your views had not changed, with an exception or two, It's that your circles have changed. Too much Clinton, not enough Camejo, I observed. Now on The Rose Show you, the great freedom fighter, urged us to withdraw, urged rejection of the opportunity for millions of Americans to vote for a candidacy of their choice and a good agenda for their future. So the anti-war Michael supports the pro-war Kerry; the anti-Patriot Act Michael supports the pro-Patriot Act Kerry; the pro-tax on corporations Michael supports the low tax on dividends and capital gains Kerry. What ever happened to the great resister? Do you think any of the corporate lobbies are quaking in anticipation of a Kerry win, e.g. the military industrial complex (to use Eisenhower's warning phrase), the pharmaceutical, nuclear power, banking, securities, insurance, petrochemical, agribusiness, biotechnology, real estate and fossil fuel industries. The corporate government in Washington is the permanent government - as you well know. Oh well, we thought we knew ye, Michael. At least while you mingle with the people born to the purple and other nouveau riche, you'll still wear your working clothes and keep your cap on real tight as you bend to the wind. Best wishes for future films, Ralph Nader
Re: more nader to moore
You go, Ralph! Dan Scanlan wrote: more nader to moore Hey Michael, Where's Your Past? The saga of Michael the Second continues. From a stalwart collaborator before huge rallies in our 2000 Nader/LaDuke campaign to a puzzling sidelines posture, to an endorsement of Wesley Clark, you have perplexed more than a few of your admirers. Now you have declared in the June 24, 2004 issue of USA Today that you "hope to have a significant impact on the 4 to 6% who now say they are going to vote for Ralph" to vote for Kerry. Wow! That's a long way from Michael of Flint and Michael of Washington, DC. You are some traveler. On "The Charlie Rose Show" last Thursday you repeated the false statement that I promised to avoid the close states in 2000 and therefore you broke away from the campaign in the last month and urged a vote for Gore. Strange - you were berating Democrats before nearly 10,000 people at our MCI Rally on November 5 - two days before the election. If you would like to see a copy of the tape of your speech let me know. And, you campaigned with us in some of those close states. I have called you on this false assertion regarding the close states yet you keep repeating the falsehood. Our 2000 Campaign was a 50 state run, (and I campaigned in all 50 states) from the beginning, a point repeated again and again, even though I spent 28 days in California and only 2 in Florida. In my last message to Michael the Second I mistakenly believed that your views had not changed, with an exception or two, "It's that your circles have changed. Too much Clinton, not enough Camejo," I observed. Now on "The Rose Show" you, the great freedom fighter, urged us to withdraw, urged rejection of the opportunity for millions of Americans to vote for a candidacy of their choice and a good agenda for their future. So the anti-war Michael supports the pro-war Kerry; the anti-Patriot Act Michael supports the pro-Patriot Act Kerry; the pro-tax on corporations Michael supports the low tax on dividends and capital gains Kerry. What ever happened to the great resister? Do you think any of the corporate lobbies are quaking in anticipation of a Kerry win, e.g. the military industrial complex (to use Eisenhower's warning phrase), the pharmaceutical, nuclear power, banking, securities, insurance, petrochemical, agribusiness, biotechnology, real estate and fossil fuel industries. The corporate government in Washington is the permanent government - as you well know. Oh well, we thought we knew ye, Michael. At least while you mingle with the people born to the purple and other nouveau riche, you'll still wear your working clothes and keep your cap on real tight as you bend to the wind. Best wishes for future films, Ralph Nader
Re: more nader to moore
Title: more nader to moore Unless there was more than one MCI rally, I was there, and I don't remember any equivocation aboutNader v. Gore fromBro. Moore. mbs On "The Charlie Rose Show" last Thursday you repeated the false statement that I promised to avoid the close states in 2000 and therefore you broke away from the campaign in the last month and urged a vote for Gore. Strange - you were berating Democrats before nearly 10,000 people at our MCI Rally on November 5 - two days before the election. If you would like to see a copy of the tape of your speech let me know. And, you campaigned with us in some of those close states. I have called you on this false assertion regarding the close states yet you keep repeating the falsehood. Our 2000 Campaign was a 50 state run, (and I campaigned in all 50 states) from the beginning, a point repeated again and again, even though I spent 28 days in California and only 2 in Florida.In my last message to Michael the Second I mistakenly believed that your views had not changed, with an exception or two, "It's that your circles have changed. Too much Clinton, not enough Camejo," I observed. Now on "The Rose Show" you, the great freedom fighter, urged us to withdraw, urged rejection of the opportunity for millions of Americans to vote for a candidacy of their choice and a good agenda for their future.So the anti-war Michael supports the pro-war Kerry; the anti-Patriot Act Michael supports the pro-Patriot Act Kerry; the pro-tax on corporations Michael supports the low tax on dividends and capital gains Kerry. What ever happened to the great resister?Do you think any of the corporate lobbies are quaking in anticipation of a Kerry win, e.g. the military industrial complex (to use Eisenhower's warning phrase), the pharmaceutical, nuclear power, banking, securities, insurance, petrochemical, agribusiness, biotechnology, real estate and fossil fuel industries. The corporate government in Washington is the permanent government - as you well know.Oh well, we thought we knew ye, Michael. At least while you mingle with the people born to the purple and other nouveau riche, you'll still wear your working clothes and keep your cap on real tight as you bend to the wind.Best wishes for future films,Ralph Nader
Nader to Kucinich
Title: Nader to Kucinich Dennis, We Thought We Knew You! By Ralph Nader http://www.votenader.com Dennis Kucinich has decided to endorse the Kerry-Edwards Campaign. Of course, since Dennis is a committed, life-long Democrat this is not a big surprise. But, in doing so he also urged Nader supporters to join Kerry-Edwards saying: There is a place within the Democratic Party for everyone, including those who may be thinking of supporting Ralph Nader. Sorry Dennis, but most Nader supporters would find it very difficult to support the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Here are ten reasons why there is no place in the Democratic Party for people who hold to their principles and progressive programs: 1. Kerry-Edwards supports the war in Iraq. The only promise that John Kerry makes regarding Iraq is that he will manage the war better than Bush. He voted for the war and will send more troops to Iraq if needed. He recently told The Wall Street Journal that he would keep the troops in Iraq longer than George Bush. 2. Unlike Senator Feingold, Kerry-Edwards undermines the Constitution and civil liberties in the U.S. They voted for the Patriot Act - an overly aggressive assault on our Constitution. John Kerry, a former federal prosecutor, has not often distinguished himself as a strong friend of civil liberties. Kerry supported the Clinton crime bills, including the expansion of the federal death penalty in 1996 legislation. 3. John Kerry represents corporations and the wealthy, not the working majority. When John Kerry met with major donors he promised them he was not a redistributionist Democrat - despite massive corporate welfare programs, and the vast rich-poor divide that exists in the U.S. today. The Washington Post reports that has received more money from corporations and their lobbyists than any other senator. For example, the Center for Responsive Politics reports that during this election cycle, Kerry took in $3,321,382 from the health care industry. Also, Kerry has received $7,568,630 from the finance, insurance and real estate industries. His anemic plan for the working poor is to raise the minimum wage to a mere $7 per hour by 2007 - when over $8 would bring the purchasing power up to that of 1968! He's called for even more corporate tax cuts as a prime part of his jobs program, despite record corporate profits and shrinking corporate responsibility for carrying their fair share of the tax burden. 4. Kerry-Edwards does not promise health care for all. Forty-five million Americans don't have health insurance and more and more can't afford to keep it. The U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other country - 25% of our expenditures go to duplicative overhead caused by health insurance-based health care. John Kerry does not replace this system with a universal health care program; he builds on this faulty system by paying the catastrophic care health insurance costs of businesses - but tens of millions will remain without health care under his plan. 5. Kerry-Edwards supports the drug war. John Kerry was the lead sponsor of Plan Colombia, the devastating militaristic approach to addiction. The plan sprays herbicides in the rain forests of Colombia, poisons the land of peasants, uses the military against peasant farmers and spreads coca cultivation in the region. Domestically, Kerry has supported crime bills that have resulted in the United States becoming the leader in incarceration in the world. 6. John Kerry continues to support WTO and NAFTA. These trade agreements that are spurring the sending of jobs overseas to Communist China, India and other poor countries undermine the sovereignty of nations by putting profit of corporations before laws enacted by nations. As a result, environmental, labor, and consumer protection laws are undermined by trade agreements. But Kerry is not calling for withdrawal from and renegotiation of these agreements. 7. John Kerry supports testing instead of teaching and does nothing to make college more affordable. Kerry supported George Bush's No Child Left Behind law, that emphasizes high stakes, high frequency, multiple choice standardized formal tests and, through their narrow domination, undermines teaching. He initially supported subsidizing college education but has now backed away from that promise. 8. The Democratic Party is undermining U.S. Democracy with John Kerry's quiet blessing. The Nader/Camejo Campaign is facing an unprecedented attack to obstruct its ballot access in numerous states with dirty tricks. Through harassment of petitioners, efforts to spoil ballot access conventions, use of state workers to challenge our signatures and employing corporate law firms to challenge our ballot access the Democratic Party is weakening the vibrancy of our democracy and trying to limit the choices of voters--with the full approval of the Democratic National Committee. The Democrats are doing nothing to energize our democracy by making it easier
Nader raises hell at Harvard
Published on Friday, July 23, 2004 Nader Campaigns in Science Center By JOSHUA P. ROGERS Harvard Crimson Staff Writer As Boston geared up for the Democratic National Convention, independent candidate Ralph Nader crashed the party with a spirited rally on Friday afternoon in the Science Center. The event, sponsored by the Harvard Socialist Alternative, featured five speakers and culminated with a 45-minute address by Nader to a motley crowd of over 500. His speech addressed why he is running for president and what is wrong with U.S. politics. Naders most obvious complaint was that the creeping increase of corporate influence in government is turning the United States into a de facto dictatorship. The two major parties are running this country into the ground for corporate campaign contributions, Nader said. George W. Bush is a giant corporation disguised as a human being residing in the White House, and his administration was marinated in oil. Nader's ridiculing of his incumbent opponent drew loud roars from the fiercely anti-Bush attendees, many of whom were lured inside the rally by a demonstrator on the plaza outside the Science Center, where a disgruntled old man, crowned by multi-colored balloons, yelled Fuck Bush! to help publicize the rally. But in addition to criticizing the Bush administration, Nader marshaled evidence that Kerry does not support a liberal constituency. Hes for the war and wants to stay in Iraq, he toes the Sharon party line, hes for corporate globalization, the WTO and NAFTA, and he voted for the PATRIOT Actthe greatest single assault on civil liberties in the countrys history, Nader said. He also faulted Harvard University for being a processing center for giant corporations. Nader cited a statistic that 95 percent of the people in his Harvard Law School class are now representing corporations while only 5 percent are representing civic interests. Polluters have the lawyers, but people with respiratory diseases dont have many lawyers, Nader said. He also criticized the system that perpetuates a two-party duopoly, and in the question-and-answer session following the speech, he supported an instant runoff system instead of the current indirect elections. The 200-year-old electoral college system ensures that winner takes all, Nader said. Voters go for the least-worst and demand nothing because they fear the worst. Nader also criticized the lack of choice in local and state electionsa trend he said has spread to the national level due to redistricting. Ninety-five percent of voters are in a one-party-dominated or nominally opposed district, Nader said. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only 25 are competitive. Election implies selection! In addition to describing why he was running for president, Nader explained why he had chosen Peter Camejo, a member of the socially responsible investment movement, as his running mate, using anecdotes from Camejos past and noting what he thinks Camejo brings to the election. Hes Latino, and weve never had a Latino candidate for V.P.he speaks Spanish beautifully, Nader said. During the question and answer session, Nader fielded several queries concerning his role in the election of 2000 and whether he believes his current campaign weakens that of John F. Kerry, the Democratic candidate. How can you sleep at night with the blood of the soldiers who died in Iraq on your hands? an audience member shouted out. Nader responded by stating that he is certain that Bush is self-destructing, and that those who live in states where Democrats are expected to win by a wide margin should vote Nader/Camejo. Bush is a one-term president, Nader said. Kerry is swinging and missing for four months, but Bush is swinging and socking himself. After Nader finished answering questions, a Nader spokesperson attempted to raise money from the crowd for the campaignwhich he claims does not accept any corporate donations. Im looking for a $1,000 hero, the spokesperson said. No such hero stepped forward, although two individuals came forward to donate $500 each. The Nader campaign representatives passed buckets around the crowd looking for additional donations, and autographed copies of Naders book, Crashing the Party, were available for $75 each at the end of the question and answer session. Staff writer Joshua P. Rogers can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Alexander Cockburn: Democrats Richly Deserve Nader
LA Times, July 22, 2004 COMMENTARY Democrats Richly Deserve Nader By Alexander Cockburn Always partial to monopolies, the Democrats think they should hold the exclusive concession on any electoral challenge to George W. Bush and the Republicans. The Ralph Nader campaign prompts them to hysterical tirades. Republicans are more relaxed about such things. Ross Perot and his Reform Party actually cost George H.W. Bush his reelection in 1992, yet Perot never drew a tenth of the abuse that Nader does now. Of course, the Democrats richly deserve the challenge. Through the Clinton years the Democratic Party remained united in fealty to corporate corruption and class viciousness, so inevitably and appropriately the Nader-centered independent challenge was born, modestly in 1996, strongly in 2000 and now in 2004. The rationale for his challenges has been as sound as that of Henry Wallace was half a century earlier. I quote from The Third Party, a pamphlet by Adam Lapin published in 1948 in support of Wallace and his Progressive Party. The Democratic administration carries the ball for Wall Street's foreign policy. And the Republican Party carries the ball for Wall Street's domestic policy. Of course the roles are sometimes interchangeable. It was President Truman who broke the 1946 railroad strike, asked for legislation to conscript strikers and initiated the heavy fines against the miners' union. There you have it: The laws including the Taft-Hartley Act, supported by 106 Democrats in the House that led to the destruction of organized labor were passed by bipartisan vote, something you will never learn from the AFL-CIO or from a thousand hoarse throats at Democratic rallies when the candidate is whoring for the labor vote. During President Clinton's years in office, union membership as a percentage of the workforce dropped because he did nothing to try to change laws or to intervene in disputes. Clinton presided over passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, insulting labor further with the farce of side agreements on labor rights that would never be enforced. By 1996 nearly half of all private employers were running aggressive anti-union drives, with familiar threats to relocate; less than 20% of private-sector workers trying to win a union contract got one. And what does John Kerry propose to help workers? Raising the minimum wage to $7 an hour by 2007, which would bring a full-time worker up to two-thirds of the poverty level. Let us suppose that a Democratic candidate arrives in the White House, at least rhetorically committed to reform, as happened with Jimmy Carter in 1977 and Clinton in 1993. Both had Democratic majorities in Congress. Battered from their first weeks over unorthodox nominees and for any deviation from Wall Street's agenda in their first budgets, both had effectively lost any innovative purchase on the system by the end of their first six months, and there was no pressure from the left to hold them to their pledges. By the end of April 1993, Clinton had sold out the Haitian refugees, put Israel's lobbyists in charge of Mideast policy, bolstered the arms industry with a budget in which projected spending for 1993-94 was higher in constant dollars than average spending in the Cold War, put Wall Street in charge of national economic strategy, sold out on grazing and mineral rights on public lands and plunged into the managed care disaster. One useful way of estimating how little separates the parties, and particularly their presidential nominees, is to tote up some of the issues on which there is tacit agreement, either as a matter of principle or with an expedient nod and wink that these are not matters suitable to be discussed in any public forum: the role of the Federal Reserve; trade policy; economic redistribution; the role and budget of the CIA and other intelligence agencies; nuclear disarmament; allocation of military procurement; reduction of the military budget; the roles and policies of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and kindred multilateral agencies; the war on drugs; corporate welfare; energy policy; the destruction of small farmers and ranchers; Israel. In the face of this conspiracy of silence, the more independent challenges the better. Nader is doing his duty. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Bill Bowles on Ralph Nader
(Bill Bowles was a Tecnica volunteer who worked with the ANC.) http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0252.html Book Review: Ralphs Revolt: The Case for Joining Naders Rebellion by Greg Bates [The] Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a 19-page manifesto for the New Democrats, who include all the principal Democratic Party candidates, and especially John Kerry. This called for the bold exercise of American power at the heart of a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party's tradition of muscular internationalism. Such a strategy would keep Americans safer than the Republicans go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources. We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of US global leadership --Bush Or Kerry? Look Closely And The Danger Is The Same by John Pilger, the New Statesman, 03/04/07 For less than one hundred years, most of us who live in the so-called democracies have had the universal franchise the vote. Every four or five years we cast our ballot (those who bother that is). Being able to vote is seen as the bedrock of democracy. Indeed, the vote has been peddled very effectively as the measure of what democracy really means. In the UK the propaganda around the right to vote has been so effective that if one believed it, the English have had the vote for nigh on a thousand years, ever since Magna Carta (the mother of democracies and so on and so forth). Yet a universal franchise (that is for men and women) wasnt achieved until after WWI in most developed countries. And so too, in the US, according to the Constitution, many believe that since 1776 (or thereabouts) Americans have had a universal franchise. The reality of course, is very different. In fact, in the US, following a brief period after the Civil War and after the period of Reconstruction, saw Black (males) systematically have the right to vote taken away from them. It wasnt until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that saw the right to vote enshrined in law for all Americans (unless of course, you're Black and live in Florida). So whats so important about the vote when its almost impossible to distinguish the two dominant political parties one from the other in the US (and for that matter, the UK)? And perhaps just as importantly, with each election, fewer and fewer people actually bother to vote. The issue around the power of the vote has taken centre stage, especially for progressives and the Left in the forthcoming US presidential election this November and has split the anti-Bush, anti-war movement right down the middle. For us here in the UK it also has great significance firstly because of vassal Blairs slavish adherence to the Bush imperium and secondly, because come a parliamentary election in 2005 or 6, progressives and the Left will be faced with a comparable dilemma. Setting aside the issues of the iniquities inherent in both electoral systems (in the US the role of the Electoral College, where the real outcome is decided and in the UK, the first past the post system that distorts how parties get represented in Parliament), in a two-party system, the argument for progressives about who to vote for comes down to one thing, the lesser of two evils and effectively, this is the way its been for generations. This and whether a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, is the core of the argument in Greg Bates book Ralph's Revolt: The Case for Joining Naders Rebellion. Those who contend that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, base their argument on the actions of the Bush presidency, contending that it is the worst on record, worst that is for its attacks on working people, democratic rights, the environment and the rest of the planet. Therefore, defeating Bush is the primary objective. Those who are opposed to voting for Nader, contend that with Kerry in power, progressives will be in a better position to exert influence over a Kerry administration. full: http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0252.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Conservative support for Nader?
Counterpunch, July 21, 2004 Nader Sleeping with the Enemy? Let's Be Fair By JOSHUA FRANK Democrats and liberal defenders of John Kerry, are throwing tantrums over Ralph Nader's new found affinity for conservatives who are aiding his ballot efforts in swing states. According to a Detroit News report, Greg McNeilly the Executive Director of the Michigan Republican Party said, We are absolutely interested in having Ralph Nader on the ballot. Indeed these Republicans hope Nader will siphon votes away from Kerry, and tally the state's 17 electoral points on George Bush's score card come election day. Right-wing organizations are also putting their efforts behind Nader out West. Citizens for a Sound Economy, an anti-tax, anti-government group ran by Republican powerhouse Dick Armey, wants Nader on the Oregon ballot. A rigid Christian anti-gay group, known as Oregon Family Council, also believes voters should have a chance to pull the lever for Ralph in the fall. As you can imagine, Democrats aren't the least bit pleased with these recent developments. And they are the first to happily point out Nader's new bedfellows. Out of their own rage over Nader's challenge to politics as usual, Democratic loyalists are fighting harder than they did during the Florida recount to keep Nader off state registers. In Oregon, while attempting to gather signatures at a local high school petition drive, Kerry troops infiltrated the event, boosting the numbers so organizers believed they had reached capacity. Countless Naderites were left out, unable to attend the rally or sign the petition, which needed to take place during a single assembly. Democrats, loathing the thought of voters having a chance to vote for Nader, did not sign the petition -- ultimately sabotaging the event efforts. Then of course there is Arizona, where Democrats successfully blocked Nader from attaining ballot access. Their lawsuit, which argued that a number of the signatures were gathered by former felons, was deemed illegal. The tactics used by the Democrats is reminiscent of the Republican shenanigans in Florida four years ago (where's Greg Palast when you need him?), and what the Democrats surely won't tell you is that they used a Republican law firm to nail Nader. Well, if Nader is so bad, what about the Kerry/Edwards ticket? Where is the Democrat support coming from? As usual, convicted corporate criminals have been pouring tons of cash into both major parties this election season. But since the Democrats seem to be the only party up in arms over Nader's bid, it is only fair to focus on their blatant follies. Chevron Inc, who was convicted in 1992 of egregious environmental offenses, has given the Democrats over $46,000 this election cycle. Pfizer, the monstrous pharmaceutical company and maker of Zoloft and erection fortifying Viagra, has given close to $160,000 to the Democrats this go-round. Their crime? Price fixing food additives, to which they pled guilty in 1999. Time/Warner, who will most likely be charged with a $400 million accounting violation later this summer by the SEC, has given John Kerry approximately $250,000 since 1990. That's not including the over $3.6 million they have given the Democrats since the Al Gore's run for president. And Democrats are up in arms over the a few thousand dollars conservatives, as individuals not corporations mind you, have given to Ralph Nader this year? Bush's homeboy, convicted right-winger Kenny Boy Lay, the Enron sage, used to sit on the board of directors for the Heinz Foundation, which is John Kerry's wife's ketcup rich environmental trust. His company has given well over one million dollars to the Democrats since 2000. And we all know Enron's crimes. Archer Daniels Midland, the huge multinational processor and exporter of cereal grains and oilseeds, pled guilty in 1996 to one of the largest anti-trust lawsuits in the history of the United States. They've anteed up over $1.7 million to the Democratic Party since 2000. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. How about the most recent on the list of corporate robber barons? Although they have yet to be convicted of any wrong-doing in Iraq (the Pentagon claims they have overcharged tax payers millions of dollars), Dick Cheney's war profiteering Halliburton has donated $129,449 to the Dems this year. And Democrats still want us to believe Nader's the only one who is sleeping with the enemy? Clearly conservative money and support, which is minimal at best, is aiding Nader's efforts to get his name on certain state ballots. But Democrats are also guilty of having their hand in a tainted cookie jar. The difference being, Nader is unlikely to be persuaded by such support. Unfortunately the same can't be said for his opposition. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
[Fwd: [Marxism] The Case for Nader-Camejo, by L. Proyect]
Swans The Case for Nader-Camejo by Louis Proyect (Swans - July 19, 2004) Although liberal attacks on Ralph Nader have been marked by a level of vituperation usually reserved for such as Slobodan Milosevic, Greg Bates's Ralph's Revolt is completely rancor-free by contrast. It is a calm, dispassionate case for joining Nader's rebellion, as the subtitle puts it. As founder and publisher of Common Courage Press, Greg Bates selects works that go against the grain of conventional thinking. They include Jeffrey St. Clair's Been Brown So Long (reviewed on Swans in March 2004) and numerous titles by Paul Farmer, the Harvard physician who has dedicated his life to helping AIDS patients in Haiti. On the Common Courage website, the mission statement refers to Farmer, who had invited Bates to a ceremony in Boston where Jean Bertrand Aristide was to give a speech. In explaining to Farmer why he publishes his books and those of other progressives, Bates says, Some ask why we do this work. We ask a different question: How can we not? Throughout Ralph's Revolt, Bates likens Nader to Don Quixote, a somewhat unflattering comparison if you think solely in terms of tilting at windmills, etc. However, one must remember that Cervantes chose Quixote as a vehicle for his own unhappiness with the bourgeois transformation of Spain. If Don Quixote was a fool to romanticize Spain's feudal past, at least he had the wisdom to assert There are only two families in the world, the Haves and the Have-nots, a phrase used by Bates as the epigraph for chapter nine of his book. In that chapter, titled Appease the Bond Market: the Kerry Plan to Make the Rich Richer, Bates lays out in convincing detail how Kerry would reinstitute Clintonomics. As a deficit hawk, Kerry promised to abandon earlier plans to expand college tuition subsidies and aid to state government in order to help the higher priority of halving the federal deficit in four years. These announcements worried liberal supporters such as Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect who shrewdly observed that Kerry was running an election campaign on the basis of how Clinton governed, rather than the way that he ran for office. He worried that No president ever got elected by promising to appease the bond market. Of course, it makes things a lot easier if you don't have a gadfly like Ralph Nader calling attention to this in televised debates. While Paul Krugman advised his readers in the New York Times on July 9 that John Kerry has proposed an ambitious health care plan that would extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, while reducing premiums for the insured, Bates reminds us that this does not include a provision for single payer insurance, the most cost efficient and effective means for insuring access to health care for all. Instead, tax-payer money will be showered on corporations to ease the cost of private insurance plans. The May 3rd Wall Street Journal quotes Kerry: I would think American business would jump up and down and welcome what I am offering. By contrast, votenader.org says: The Nader Campaign supports a single-payer health care plan that replaces for-profit, investor-owned health care and removes the private health insurance industry (full Medicare for all). If Nader's campaign suggests elements of Don Quixote, then Bates sees George W. Bush in terms of another familiar literary figure from the same period. The year 1605, or possibly 1606, saw the creation of William Shakespeare's Macbeth. There are some parallels between this assassin and George W. Bush. The one murdered to become king, while the other stabbed democracy in the back by convincing his allies on the Supreme Court to anoint him. But, as with the Ralph Nader/Don Quixote comparison, it is the differences, not the similarities, that illustrate. As tempting as it is to understand everything that's gone wrong with the USA in the past four years as the plot of an evil King (a trope that was also found in Barbara Garson's Macbird, a send-up of LBJ during the Vietnam war), the real problem is the lack of a hero to come to the rescue in the final act. While so many liberals (including Michael Moore) hope that the Democrats arrive on a white horse to rescue the American people, the truth is that the Democrats have been complicit in the right wing drive to make war abroad, deprive us of decent jobs and curtail civil liberties. With respect to his ambitions, Bush is not qualitatively different from previous scary Republican Party presidents, from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan. What he has and what they lacked is control over the Congress and Judiciary, something that has not occurred since the 1950s. Furthermore, Bush benefits from having a supine Democratic legislative opposition that has voted for the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, the invasion of Afghanistan, and many other Bush initiatives. If Bush represents some sort of fascist threat, it is remarkable that none of the leading Democrats
Re: [Fwd: [Marxism] The Case for Nader-Camejo, by L. Proyect]
On budget deficits, Kerry is as bad as Clinton, which is pretty bad. But Nader has never been particularly good and clear on this issue, though I think that overall his programmatic message goes in the right direction. mbs In that chapter, titled Appease the Bond Market: the Kerry Plan to Make the Rich Richer, Bates lays out in convincing detail how Kerry would reinstitute Clintonomics. As a deficit hawk,
Democrats Put Bush on the Ballot While Fighting to Keep Nader off It
Democrats Put Bush on the Ballot While Fighting to Keep Nader off It: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/07/democrats-put-bush-on-ballot-while.html
Matt Gonzalez: Why Vote for Ralph Nader?
Matt Gonzalez: Why Vote for Ralph Nader?: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/07/matt-gonzalez-why-vote-for-ralph-nader.html. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Salon.com versus Ralph Nader
Nader's got some explaining to do. Why is his campaign headquarters housed in his nonprofit's tax-exempt offices? By Joe Conason, salon.com March 15, 2004 | Ever since Ralph Nader announced his independent candidacy for president last month, both friends and critics have wondered why he is running -- and where the great gadfly will obtain the enormous resources needed for a national campaign. Already there is evidence that his organization may be cutting financial corners and skirting the dubious edge of federal election and tax laws. full: http://archive.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/15/nader/ === Strange alliance Why is Rupert Murdoch's media empire publishing Ralph Nader's latest tome? By Eric Boehlert, salon.com July 9, 2004 | When former Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean faces third-party candidate Ralph Nader in a 90-minute debate to be aired on National Public Radio Friday, Dean is sure to press Nader on whether his run for the White House will again help Republicans on Election Day, and on whether Nader has become that party's pawn. Another good question Dean might ask Nader, critic of corporate-controlled Washington and foe of rampant media consolidation, is why Nader's new book, which arrived in stores this week and kicks off his presidential campaign, is being published by Rupert Murdoch. Chairman of the expansive conglomerate News Corp., the conservative Murdoch has been a chief advocate for more than two decades of extensive media deregulation. And his HarperCollins is not only publishing Nader's The Good Fight: Declare Your Independence and Close the Democracy Gap but providing the candidate with expensive public relations promotion and media bookings. full: http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/09/nader_murdoch/index.html === The Washington Post June 21, 1985, Friday, Final Edition Village Voice Sold By Margot Hornblower, Washington Post Staff Writer The Village Voice, New York's iconoclastic weekly, was bought today for more than $55 million by Leonard Stern, the wealthy and controversial owner of the Hartz Mountain pet products company and a major real estate developer in New York and New Jersey. The Voice had been owned since 1977 by Rupert Murdoch, the Australian media magnate who owns the New York Post and recently bought a group of seven television stations for $2 billion with another partner A group of Voice employes, including Senior Editor Jack Newfield, met last week in the office of attorney Adam Walinsky to discuss founding an alternative paper with a new unnamed backer. We have concerns about Leonard Stern based on things we've learned about his past, including his business practices, said JOSEPH CONASON, a political writer and union official. Murdoch, according to Voice employees, left the paper alone to pursue its independent viewpoint. === On the phone with Ralph Nader Salon editor David Talbot and the presidential contender have a frank and honest exchange of views. July 14, 2004 | Last Friday, Ralph Nader's campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese e-mailed Salon, saying that Nader wanted to speak with Salon editor David Talbot about recent articles that have appeared in Salon concerning him and his candidacy. The following is a transcript of the ensuing three-way phone conversation among Nader, Zeese and Talbot. It ranged over Rupert Murdoch (whose company published Nader's new book), Democratic dirty tricks against the independent candidate's presidential bid, and Nader's acceptance of conservative money and support. Nader opened the conversation by charging that Salon had not solicited a response from him when preparing two recent critical pieces about him -- The Dark Side of Ralph Nader, by Lisa Chamberlain, and Strange Alliance, by Eric Boehlert. For the record, Chamberlain made repeated phone calls to Nader's campaign office and Zeese's cellphone seeking a comment from Nader or his spokesman but received no replies. And Boehlert spoke to Zeese on the phone, quoting him in his piece. Nader: Why didn't your reporters call for a response? Talbot: They did. Nader: Since [Lisa Chamberlain] was writing about the campaign, wouldn't you have the decency to call our campaign office? Talbot: It's always Salon's procedure, whenever we do a critical article on anyone -- whether it's the Bush administration or you or anyone -- to give them a chance to respond. That's always our policy. full: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/14/naderphonecall/index.html === The San Francisco Chronicle AUGUST 10, 2001, FRIDAY, FINAL EDITION Salon backers kick in more cash; 11-member group puts up $2.5 million amid further layoffs By Dan Fost Salon Media Group said yesterday that a new infusion of cash -- and a new round of layoffs -- will help it reach profitability by the end of this year. Longtime Salon investor BILL HAMBRECHT and Adobe Systems founder John Warnock are leading a group of 11 investors
Greens for Nader!
Greens for Nader! (circulating a petition to protest the campaign against the voters by Democratic Party operatives trying to keep Ralph Nader Peter Miguel Camejo off the ballot): http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/07/greens-for-nader.html. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
American Leftists, Michael Moore, and Ralph Nader
American Leftists, Michael Moore, and Ralph Nader: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/07/american-leftists-michael-moore-and.html -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: American Leftists, Michael Moore, and Ralph Nader
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: American Leftists, Michael Moore, and Ralph Nader: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/07/american-leftists-michael-moore-and.html This Mark Ames is a real piece of work, isn't he? He barely looks old enough to shave, but has the gall to dress down the US left. What gives this cheap imitation of Hunter Thompson the license to grade people in this fashion? We have no need to justify ourself to a carpet-bagger like him. He calls us the Vichy Left, in comparison to Moore who wrote Valentines to the war criminal Wesley Clark. If anybody should be accused of collaborating with the enemy, it is the disgusting ABB crowd that grovels at the feet of John stay the course Kerry, not people who go out and organize mass demonstrations and who will only get mentioned in Time Magazine as fans of Kim Jong Il, if at all. Part of the problem with Ames is that he has a bizarre understanding of what constitutes the left in the USA. He writes, Incredibly enough, the most vicious attacks against Moore come from the LA Weekly, perhaps the most relevant Leftist outlet combining cultural/film criticism and leftist ideology. What fucking planet does this guy live on? I used to hang out with Jay Levin, who started LA Weekly in the 1980s. He sold it to a bunch of hustlers in the 1990s who first eviscerated the radical politics and then hired slugs like Marc Cooper and Harold Myerson to write social democratic pap. Levin was into the FSLN, the people who run it now are into making money through massage parlor ads and articles about where to buy the best burrito in LA. If this life-style weekly is supposed to be leftist, then I am Jesus Christ's nephew. Thrown into the leftist category along with the LA Weekly are Dissent, the Village Voice and salon.com. Right. Boiling cauldrons of Bolshevism, don't you know. Oddly enough, the only genuine leftist that gets a wad of Ames's venom is wsws.org who actually fell over backwards praising Moore's film. He is bothered, however, by their boilerplate sectarian quibble with Moore's fuzzy politics: The director here has taken the line of least resistance, succumbing to the lure of the easy exlanation, rather than providing a more profound analysis. The popular outpouring confirms that a radicalizatin [sic] is under way in the US, with far-reaching implications. The hardboiled Ames remonstrates with the sectarians: But not to worry. Marx is going to be right one of these days, and that day is finally at hand. I don't know. I take a look at imperial occupation of Iraq, immiseration of most of the 3rd world and declining living standards in the industrialized countries and Marx seems as right as ever. Of course, there will always be people who sneer at Marxists in this fashion. It is almost a guarantee that you will make steady advances in a journalism career. Such people are welcome to the bitch goddess success. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
The latest good reason to vote for Nader
Brad DeLong: An Infantile Disorder Timothy Noah has fallen in love with Barbara Ehrenreich: Chatterbox: ...Barbara Ehrenreich has established herself as the Times's best columnist. This is, of course, a snap judgment, but Ehrenreich has long been one of the most eloquent voices on the left, which, as distinct from liberalism, has not had much access to the mainstream press for many years. The Bush administration has revitalized the left, making it necessary for the rest of usliberals like Chatterbox as well as conservativesto keep abreast of what it's saying The Times op-ed page desperately needs her mature voice, her sharp mind, and the challenge her ideas pose to the common wisdom... I say, God, no! and PUH-LEEZE!! It may be because Barbara Ehrenreich is a typical voice of the American left that it will in all probability be a waste of ink and paper to put her on the Times op-ed page, but a waste of ink and paper it will most likely be. I agree that Barbara Ehrenreich is a very smart and graceful writer, a keen analyst of American culture and society--she is worth, say, ten of David Brooks. But her brand of left-wing politics is an infantile disorder. Left-wing politics is, for her, primarily a means of self-expression. The point is not to actually do anything to make the United States or the world a better place--not to actually help people make better lives for themselves by improving the enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act or to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit or to raise the minimum wage or to improve Medicaid coverage. The point, by contrast, is to assume an appropriate oppositional stance, and to feel good about oneself. Witness her argument that what upper and upper-middle class American women should do is to fire their nannies in order to avoid their children growing up with the world's class and racial hierarchies stamped on their emerging little world views--thus depriving relatively poor women of jobs and opportunities they found it worthwhile to grasp. If you genuinely worry, as you should, about the wages and working conditions of relatively poor women today, your first action item should not be to urge others to decrease demand for their labor. But let's let Barbara Ehrenreich speak for herself, in her command to all correctly-thinking people to vote for Ralph Nader that she made four years ago: Barbara Ehrenreich (2000), Vote for Nader! The Nation (August 21-8), p. 33: It must be some playful new postmodernist form of politics: First you spend years ranting about the plutocracy that has supplanted American democracy and is rapidly devouring the planet. You complain about the growing numbers of Americans who can't afford healthcare or housing; you rant about the inadequacy of wages and the arrogance of the corporate overclass. then, just as large numbers of people start tuning in and even getting excited to the point of supporting the one presidential candidate who's making the exact same points you've been trying to get across all this time--you whip around and shout, Only kidding, folks. Get out there and vote for Gore! full: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/001173.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Audio transcript of Nader-Dean debate
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3262027 -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: bushites and nader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/30/04 9:25 PM That's nothing in comparison to Gore inspiring more than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida to crossover and vote for George W. Bush in the last election. The Democrats should not worry about the tiny number of Democrats who vote for Nader. They should try to figure out how to get Democrats to stop voting in massive numbers for Republicans. re. florida dems voting for bush in 2000, believe i was first to make the point (among some others), in post-election articles in local 'orlando weekly' rag... about 87% of dem voters nationwide voted for gore, about 94% of rep voters nationwide voted for bush, reps have history of stronger voter loyalty... in florida, some of those who voted for bush have been voting rep for several decades, particularly true in panhandle where more than a few conservative 'dixiecrats' have maintained dem voter registration even though they consistently vote rep... fwiw: vice-prez position has not been a very good one for prez office seekers, only a few have been able to win election... of course, gore did win popular vote both nationwide and in florida, and he ran to left of dlc who whined about that being reason he 'lost'... ironically, in florida, gore lost if vote had been recounted *only* in 4 majority dem counties that his people cynically pushed for but he won if the entire state had been recounted...michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
The crusade against Ralph Nader continues...
(The liberal crusade against Ralph Nader continues unabated despite the victory of David Kerry Cobb. This is from salon.com, a wretched online publication that serves as a tag-team partner for the Nation Magazine in policing the left.) The dark side of Ralph Nader He's made a career of railing against corporate misdeeds. Yet he himself has abused his underlings, betrayed close friends and ruled his public-interest empire like a dictator. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Lisa Chamberlain July 1, 2004 | Ralph Nader spent his 70th birthday with Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, where Maher pressed him on exactly what his controversial fourth presidential campaign will contribute to the national debate. Nader repeated once again that he's the only candidate not beholden to corporate America. While Nader's legacy as a consumer advocate is unparalleled, it is worth noting that the onetime national hero wasn't celebrating his landmark birthday surrounded by the hundreds of people he has worked with and influenced over four decades. Indeed, virtually no one who worked with him since the heady days of Nader's Raiders is supporting him politically or personally today. He has inspired almost no loyalty and instead has alienated many of his closest associates. Yet this is not a new phenomenon, the result of his ruinous campaign for president in 2000, but a long-festering and little-known antipathy that dates back to his earliest days as a public figure. full: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/01/nader_jacobs/index_np.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
bushites and nader
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/index.html Bush allies illegally helping Nader in Oregon Complaint filed with Federal Election Commission Wednesday, June 30, 2004 Posted: 8:19 PM EDT (0019 GMT) America Votes 2004 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Efforts by two conservative groups to help President Bush by getting independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot in the key battleground state of Oregon prompted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission Wednesday by a liberal watchdog group. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said phone banks encouraging Bush supporters to attend a Nader nominating convention last Saturday amounted to an illegal in-kind contribution to the Nader campaign by the Oregon Family Council and Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy. Bush's re-election campaign and the Oregon Republican Party were also named in the complaint for allegedly participating in the effort. The complaint alleges the groups worked together to promote Nader and siphon potential votes away from Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said the two groups, though non-profit, are still considered corporations, and corporations are strictly prohibited from making contributions to political campaigns. While the Bush campaign had no immediate comment, Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese called the allegations absolute nonsense. We didn't work with any Republican groups or any corporations or non-profits trying to get people to come to our event, Zeese said. We reached out to our constituency and got our people out there. To get on the ballot, the Nader campaign has to get the signatures of 1,000 registered voters in one day or submit 15,000 signatures statewide. On Saturday, Nader supporters held a convention in Portland to try to get the necessary signatures. While more than 1,100 people attended, the signatures are still being verified, so it is unclear if the effort was successful. Whether Nader gets on the ballot in Oregon could be critical in deciding which candidate carries the state and its seven electoral votes. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore beat Bush by less than 7,000 votes in the state. Published polls show Bush running neck-and-neck with Kerry, with Nader drawing 3 percent to 5 percent of the vote. The Oregon Family Council is a conservative Christian group that opposes same-sex marriage and abortion rights. Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy is the state chapter of a national anti-tax group headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Both groups openly admit they urged supporters to show up at the Nader event. We called about 1,000 folks in the Portland area and said this would be an opportunity to show up to provide clarity in the presidential debate, said Matt Kibbe, president of CSE, who denied the the calls were coordinated with either the Bush or the Nader campaigns. Kibbe said Nader forces John Kerry to explain where he is on things.'' In its complaint, CREW also charged that the state GOP encouraged the Oregon Family Council to make the phone calls, which it said amounted to illegally conspiring with an outside group to evade a ban on state parties using soft money to send out public communications. What the Oregon Republican Party could not do directly, it could not do indirectly, the complaint said. CREW also cited comments by Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt that campaign volunteers, though not paid staffers, may have made phone calls from the campaign's office. The costs of those calls, including the preparation of phone lists and scripts, should have been reported to the FEC as an in-kind contribution from the Bush campaign to Nader, which would be illegal if it amounted to more than $5,000, the complaint said. Sloan also told CNN that she is convinced the phone banks were coordinated between the Bush campaign, the Oregon GOP and the two groups, saying it can't be a coincidence ... that they're all making the same phone calls at the same time. However, she said it is unclear whether the Nader campaign was involved. If Ralph Nader gets on the ballot, he would pull thousands of liberal votes that would otherwise go to Kerry and perhaps cause President Bush to lose the election, read one script for the phone campaign, which CREW cited in its complaint. CREW has previously filed complaints against both the Nader and Bush campaigns, alleging illegal assistance from tax-exempt corporations. Zeese, noting that the group has never moved against a Democrat, called it a partisan organization, and he accused Democrats of trying to interfere with the Nader signature drive. Democrats have been trying to persuade Nader supporters not to back his independent bid this year, arguing that it will help Bush by dividing the liberal vote in closely fought states.
Re: bushites and nader
Dan Scanlan wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/index.html Bush allies illegally helping Nader in Oregon Complaint filed with Federal Election Commission Wednesday, June 30, 2004 Posted: 8:19 PM EDT (0019 GMT) America Votes 2004 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Efforts by two conservative groups to help President Bush by getting independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot in the key battleground state of Oregon prompted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission Wednesday by a liberal watchdog group. That's nothing in comparison to Gore inspiring more than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida to crossover and vote for George W. Bush in the last election. The Democrats should not worry about the tiny number of Democrats who vote for Nader. They should try to figure out how to get Democrats to stop voting in massive numbers for Republicans. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: bushites and nader
Louis wrote... That's nothing in comparison to Gore inspiring more than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida to crossover and vote for George W. Bush in the last election. The Democrats should not worry about the tiny number of Democrats who vote for Nader. They should try to figure out how to get Democrats to stop voting in massive numbers for Republicans. Bravo!
nader to moore
Title: nader to moore Ralph Nader letter to Michael Moore: http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=54
To the author of the Nader = suicide bomber article in the Village Voice
Dr. Harry G. Levine, I had assumed that the author of the VV hatchet-job on Nader was some snot-nosed kid on George Soros's payroll. I was surprised to discover that it was instead written by a Queens College sociology professor: http://www.soc.qc.edu/Staff/levine/ (My advice, btw, is to trim the hair and beard. You are not 30 any more.) You have 2 articles on your website, one the VV article with the racist title and a similar one with the alternative title RALPH NADER AS MAD BOMBER. What's with the bomb obsession, anyhow? If you had allowed yourself just a tad more rhetorical excess, you might have wound up with something like Ralph Nader, oily Arab, go back where you came from. I see that you relied on the wretched G. William Domhoff for advice on your articles. This makes perfect sense. 35 years ago he earned some distinction for analyzing American class structure. In more recent years his attention seems to have turned toward the study of dreams and the need to vote for any Democrat, no matter how stinky. These two topics are obviously closely related. My suggestion to you is to take some Paxil or something to get rid of this obsession with Ralph Nader. Furthermore, you should not blame him for Gore's defeat in 2000. My old friend Peter Camejo told a news conference that over 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush that year. He also was sure that not a single Green Party member voted for Bush. If so, he demanded that the person turn himself in immediately. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Vote for Nader = Vote for Camejo!
Vote for Nader = Vote for Camejo!: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/06/vote-for-nader-vote-for-camejo.html -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Nader/Camejo
the radio news says that Ralph Nader has chosen Peter Camejo as his vice-presidential running mate. Camejo is good, but I don't think they should start measuring the White House for new carpets yet... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Nader/Camejo
the radio news says that Ralph Nader has chosen Peter Camejo as his vice-presidential running mate. Camejo is good, but I don't think they should start measuring the White House for new carpets yet... They couldn't afford it anyway --there's so much crap swept under the current rug it will take a revolutionary device to pull it up. Dan Scanlan
Vote Nader/Camejo 2004!
Vote Nader/Camejo 2004! Great news! Ralph Nader did the right thing and chose Peter Miguel Camejo for his running mate: Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader selected Peter Camejo, a Green Party activist from California, as his vice presidential nominee on Monday. The pick comes just days before the Green Party will select its candidate for the White House at its national convention in Milwaukee, where Camejo said he will make the case for Nader, the party's presidential nominee four years ago. Although not actively seeking the Green nomination, Nader said he would accept it and the access to 22 state ballot lines the party selection brings with it. . . . Camejo ran as the Green Party candidate for governor of California in the special election won by Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. Camejo appeared in the campaign's only nationally televised debate and won 3 percent of the vote. He also ran for governor in 2002, winning 5 percent. The son of Venezuelan immigrants and fluent in Spanish, Camejo said at the press conference announcing his selection he would lead the Nader campaign's outreach to Hispanics, a traditional Democratic constituency. The campaign's central issue, Camejo said, would be opposition to the war in Iraq, and criticized Bush and Kerry for having identical positions. . . . His campaign turned in about 40,000 signatures on Monday to get on the Illinois ballot, more than the required 25,000. Petitions have also been completed in Texas and Arizona and are awaiting certification. . . . (Rolando Garcia/Reuters, Independent Nader Taps Green Party Activist for VP, June 21, 2004) Nader's choice of Camejo as his vice presidential candidate makes it much easier for the left-wing of the Green Party -- of which Camejo is the most prominent member -- to get the party to endorse the Nader campaign at its national convention. Now, the promise of the Nader campaign has dramatically increased quantitatively and qualitatively. The Nader/Camejo ticket will likely receive the Green Party's 22 state ballot lines and, in addition to Nader's own efforts so far and the Reform Party's 7 ballot lines, can mount an all-out campaign in almost all states! Camejo will move the Nader campaign's politics sharply to the left, too, especially on issues such as immigration on which Nader's own rhetoric at times has been found wanting by left-wing activists. Now, we're really good to go! Vote Nader/Camejo 2004! [The text with full links: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/06/vote-nadercamejo-2004.html.] -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Nader under attack for campaign violations
(What gall it takes for these questions to be raised in the bourgeois press and by bourgeois politicians.) Nader Had Campaign Office at Charity Situation Raises Ethical Questions By James V. Grimaldi Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, June 13, 2004; Page A01 Since October, Ralph Nader has run his campaign for president out of the same downtown Washington offices that through April housed a public charity he created -- an overlap that campaign finance specialists said could run afoul of federal laws. Tax law explicitly forbids public charities from aiding political campaigns. Violations can result in a charity losing its tax-exempt status. In addition, campaign law requires candidates to account for all contributions -- including shared office space and resources, down to the use of copying machines, receptionists and telephones. Records show many links between Nader's campaign and the charity Citizen Works. For example, the charity's listed president, Theresa Amato, is also Nader's campaign manager. The campaign said in an e-mail to The Washington Post that Amato resigned from the charity in 2003. But in the charity's most recent corporate filing with the District, in January, Amato listed herself as the charity's president and registered agent. The office suite housing the campaign, the charity and other sub-tenants had a common receptionist for greeting visitors. And Federal Election Commission records show the campaign paid rent to Citizen Works and Citizen Works' landlord. Nader said the campaign has taken over the charity's lease on its coveted location on 16th Street NW. There is nothing, no wrongdoing here, Nader said Friday. full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37363-2004Jun12.html -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/31/2004 2:06:42 PM
Gitlin is a repulsive character, but everything he says in this
passage is, sadly, true:
But there is no evidence that nonvoters differ from voters in any
ideological way.
poli sci guy stephen earl bennett's 1990 'deconstruction' ('the uses
and abuses of registration and turnout data', _ps_) of above exposed it
for canard it actually is...
'truism' gained prominence with couple of 1988 post-election surveys
indicating that non-voters would have cast ballots for bush (54%) in
roughly same percentage as voters did, bennett
disclosed extent to which after an election even folks who didn't vote
say they prefer winner...
2000 national election study (nes) included question about what to do
with ostensible 'budget surplus' available at that time, there was
significant difference between voter and non-voter responses with former
favoring tax cut and latter favoring spending for education, health
care, etc...
actual turnout among lower-income folks increases in rare instances
where candidates (dems in most places) are perceived as concerned with
their needs, even when chances for victory are only modest (not,
however, when hopeless as in too many minor
party/independent/alternative campaigns)...
upper income voters three times more likely to vote for reps than lower
income voters, helps explain why effort is put into attempts to
discourage latter from voting, no need to 'purge' voter rolls as florida
does under rep. governor bush if larger low-income electorate wouldn't
make difference...
in any event, asking certain questions of separate and distinct
individuals and then aggregating responses creates opinion that wouldn't
otherwise exist, polling organizes 'publics' in ways that they wouldn't
on their own...
in sum, example of what c. wright mills called 'crackpot realism'...
michael
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
Michael Hoover wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/31/2004 2:06:42 PM
Gitlin is a repulsive character, but everything he says in this
passage is, sadly, true:
But there is no evidence that nonvoters differ from voters in any
ideological way.
poli sci guy stephen earl bennett's 1990 'deconstruction' ('the uses
and abuses of registration and turnout data', _ps_) of above exposed it
for canard it actually is...
That's not what a bunch of public opinion pundits told me recently.
Most surveys found little difference between voters nonvoters. One
deconstruction isn't necessarily the last word.
Doug
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/1/2004 1:46:00 PM
Michael Hoover wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/31/2004 2:06:42 PM
poli sci guy stephen earl bennett's 1990 'deconstruction' ('the uses
and abuses of registration and turnout data', _ps_) of above exposed
it
for canard it actually is...
That's not what a bunch of public opinion pundits told me recently.
Most surveys found little difference between voters nonvoters. One
deconstruction isn't necessarily the last word.
Doug
yeah, yeah, yeah, i know what literature on this stuff says, i read it
all time as it is part and parcel of mainstream pol sci
'voting behavior' studies...
don't think you're reference to 'public opinion pundits' (always found
use of that term interesting given that it means self-
professed authority) weakens point of my previous post, in fact, it may
strengthen it... michael hoover (in his own not so humble opinion)
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
In my much more humble opinion, I agree with Michael: it doesn't make sense to me that
non-voters and voters would vote in a similar way, since the former are poorer, more
minority, and less educated than the latter, and many votes correlate highly with
income, ethnicity, and education.
Jim D.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Hoover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 6/1/2004 10:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] the new number one reason to vote Nader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/1/2004 1:46:00 PM
Michael Hoover wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/31/2004 2:06:42 PM
poli sci guy stephen earl bennett's 1990 'deconstruction' ('the uses
and abuses of registration and turnout data', _ps_) of above exposed
it
for canard it actually is...
That's not what a bunch of public opinion pundits told me recently.
Most surveys found little difference between voters nonvoters. One
deconstruction isn't necessarily the last word.
Doug
yeah, yeah, yeah, i know what literature on this stuff says, i read it
all time as it is part and parcel of mainstream pol sci
'voting behavior' studies...
don't think you're reference to 'public opinion pundits' (always found
use of that term interesting given that it means self-
professed authority) weakens point of my previous post, in fact, it may
strengthen it... michael hoover (in his own not so humble opinion)
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
Devine, James wrote: In my much more humble opinion, I agree with Michael: it doesn't make sense to me that non-voters and voters would vote in a similar way, since the former are poorer, more minority, and less educated than the latter, and many votes correlate highly with income, ethnicity, and education. Jim D. Another thing left out. If Non-Voters were to vote it would be because something had happened -- but no conceivable question that can be asked a _present_ non-voter can throw light on those (hypothetical future) events which would have changed the non-voter to the voter. This error seems to me rather fundamental in bourgeois ideology. Consider a recent post on the Milton-L list: If John Milton could observe the world of today (I mean the Milton we know from his writings, not Milton as he might have turned out had he lived today) would he take sides in the 'War on Terror?' If so, who would he support and why? Or would he call down a plague on both their houses? I replied to this question as follows: - I don't believe your specification -- (I mean the Milton we know from his writings, not Milton as he might have turned out had he lived today) -- is tenable. The Milton we know from his writings (and the writings themselves to a great extent) simply could not exist abstracted from the ensemble of social relations which in a very real way constituted that Milton. And whatever principles we ourselves can abstract from those writings almost certainly could (and will be) used to ground all possible positions on the War on Terror. The difficulty in answering your question, then, is that the question is incoherent. I would even argue that prior to the last 50 years the verbal construct, War on follwed by an abstract noun, would not make sense. War on Poverty. War on Drugs. War on Crime. War on Terror. All these expressions are essentially incoherent. Your subject line, USA v.Al-Quaeda, is a tacit recognition of the incoherence of War on Terror. Al-Quaeda consists of a specific group of persons, organized around identifiable principles, and it was possible to imagine a _that _ war. (Cf. a War on the Mafia vs a War on Crime.) But that (possible) war became impossible when the Bush administration, instead of launching a standard sort of criminal investigation, used 9/11 as an excuse for what is developing into a War against Everyone. That war the U.S. will inevitably lose, though one may fear that in the process the whole human species may well be irreparably damaged. Carrol --- A non-voter who voted would no longer be a non-voter; she would be the person who had undergone certain experiences that as a non-voter she would not have undergone. Hence her opinion in the present, in which she is a non-voter, throws no light on her opinion in a world in which she is a voter. Consider, similarly, the idiotic question often asked, What would a revolutionary regime in the U.S. do about X? -- X being a condition that exists now. All one need do to see the idiocy involved is to imagine the unimaginable changes which would have to have occurred in present conditions before a revolutionary regime could be even a remote possibility. It would be as though someone in 1787 had asked, How can we get the votes in Oregon reported in time for the electors to vote in December when it takes a whole year to travel from Oregon to Philadepphia? Try it another way. A world in which 20% of current non-voters voted would be a world radically different from the world in which public-opinion pundits arrive at their current conclusions. We simply can't even make rough guesses at how _anyone_ would vote in such a world without first making an accurate assessment (impossible I think) of what public events could bring about such a change in voting habits. Those events would of course have a profound effect also on those who are presently voting, so _their_ present voting habits give us no clue as to how they would vote under the (now unknowable) changed conditions. Predictions on how non-voters would vote if they did vote are grounded in the assumption that there has been history but no longer is any. Carrol
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
Michael Hoover wrote:
But there is no evidence that nonvoters differ from voters in any
ideological way.
poli sci guy stephen earl bennett's 1990 'deconstruction' ('the
uses and abuses of registration and turnout data', _ps_) of above
exposed it for canard it actually is...
That's not what a bunch of public opinion pundits told me recently.
Most surveys found little difference between voters nonvoters. One
deconstruction isn't necessarily the last word.
Doug
If preferences of voters and non-voters are practically identical to
each other, despite differences in class, race, age, partisan
identification, etc. (In November [2000], 48 percent of eligible
voters didn't go to the polls. These no shows tended to be younger
[27 percent of nonvoters were under 30] and less educated. They had
lower incomes and were more likely to identify themselves as
Independents. [Forty percent of nonvoters identify themselves as
Independents, compared to 27 percent of voters.] [Pete Boyle and
Michael Fleischer, Survey of Voters and Nonvoters Identifies Clues
, a
href=http://www.pewtrusts.com/news/news_subpage.cfm?content_item_id=679content_type_id=7page=nr1;March
12, 2001/a), why spend money and hold elections at all? The
government might simply commission a polling firm to do a survey of a
couple of thousands of eligible electors (whether they are likely or
unlikely voters) and decide on the winners based on their
preferences. That would be much cheaper.
--
Yoshie
* Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/
* Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html,
http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/
* Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/
* Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio
* Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Mike Davis's Critical Support for Nader
(This appears in the British SWP magazine Socialist Review at: http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=8930. It is similar to an article that appeared on tomdispatch.com a month ago, but contains critical support of Ralph Nader, something that was absent in the earlier article.) snip At this point, only the Nader campaign genuinely offers political space to demand the US out of Iraq and to contest Washington's broader interventionist agenda. Only Nader is likely to press the attack on the corporate puppeteers of both political parties. At the same time, it would be utopian to expect Nader - an old-fashioned progressive who has just won the endorsement of the former Perot voters and Jesse Ventura supporters in the Reform Party - to offer a coherent critique of the brave new world being fashioned in the twilight of cheap oil. That's a job description for socialists. That's interesting. Was Davis' critical support for Nader edited out by tomdispatch.com or was it his own decision? -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
The new number one reason to vote Nader
Dissent Magazine, Spring 2004 Ralph Nader and the Will to Marginality by Todd Gitlin A classic book of social psychology analyzes a flying saucer cult of the 1950s. This small band of Americans believed that on a particular date soon to come, the world would be engulfed by a flood of biblical proportions-but also that, on the very same day, flying saucers would arrive and rescue the true believers. Researchers infiltrated the group and waited to see what would happen. Came the designated day, the landscape remained dry, no saucers landed, and how did the believers respond? A number of them fell away. But as in similar cases of millenarian prophecy over previous centuries, there remained a core of fanatics who, having already turned their lives upside down to conform to the prophecy, took courage from the support they found in their group. They stuck to their guns, reinterpreted the data in such a way as to justify the commitments they had already undertaken, and intensified their proselytizing efforts. If reality was going to be in such poor form as to disconfirm their belief, they would find a way to make belief and reality match. If they could win converts in a second round of proselytizing, they would confirm the wisdom they had demonstrated in the first. full: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/ -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition [EMAIL PROTECTED], PEN-L list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Marxism] The new number one reason to vote Nader From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 13:09:41 -0400 Reply-To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) Dissent Magazine, Spring 2004 Ralph Nader and the Will to Marginality by Todd Gitlin Yes, I love it! The new slogan: 'A Vote for Nader is a vote against Todd Gitlin' is sure to mobilise old SDS'ers. cheers, michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
michael a. lebowitz wrote: Dissent Magazine, Spring 2004 Ralph Nader and the Will to Marginality by Todd Gitlin Yes, I love it! The new slogan: 'A Vote for Nader is a vote against Todd Gitlin' is sure to mobilise old SDS'ers. Gitlin is a repulsive character, but everything he says in this passage is, sadly, true: But there is no evidence that nonvoters differ from voters in any ideological way. They are not bashful saints or hidden leftists biding their time until a candidate appears with the precisely correct political position. They are disproportionately low-income and younger people who, if they want anything from politics, want practical results. Their cynicism about politics is self-interested; they have real needs. What they are not looking for is a prophet or a new party. If those who suffer most from corporate domination were susceptible to Nader's appeal, why was his black vote in 2000 so puny-only 1 percent in Washington, D. C., for example, where Nader won 5 percent overall? He certainly didn't increase turnout among blacks or any other minority. A Green vote was a luxury that could only be afforded by those who didn't need politics to defend their material interests. In fact, Nader's base is a sliver of upper-middle-class whites-the liberal intelligentsia, you might say-disproportionately located in such states as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire with the smallest black populations.
Re: The new number one reason to vote Nader
This opening by Gitlin could (and should) be the opening to stop voting Democrat. Louis Proyect wrote: Dissent Magazine, Spring 2004 Ralph Nader and the Will to Marginality by Todd Gitlin A classic book of social psychology analyzes a flying saucer cult of the 1950s. This small band of Americans believed that on a particular date soon to come, the world would be engulfed by a flood of biblical proportions-but also that, on the very same day, flying saucers would arrive and rescue the true believers. Researchers infiltrated the group and waited to see what would happen. Came the designated day, the landscape remained dry, no saucers landed, and how did the believers respond? A number of them fell away. But as in similar cases of millenarian prophecy over previous centuries, there remained a core of fanatics who, having already turned their lives upside down to conform to the prophecy, took courage from the support they found in their group. They stuck to their guns, reinterpreted the data in such a way as to justify the commitments they had already undertaken, and intensified their proselytizing efforts. If reality was going to be in such poor form as to disconfirm their belief, they would find a way to make belief and reality match. If they could win converts in a second round of proselytizing, they would confirm the wisdom they had demonstrated in the first. full: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/ -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
[Fwd: [Marxism] The Nader Factor: Democrat Fat Cats toy with anti-war voters]
Slept with Nader woke up with Bush in 2000? The Nader Factor: Democrat Fat Cats toy with anti-war voters By Walt Contreras Sheasby Were it not for a loophole in the McCain-Feingold Act and the somersaults of defeated candidates Howard Dean, Gen. Wesley Clark, and Dick Gephardt, petitioners for Ralph Nader would have an easier time of collecting signatures to put him on the ballot. The anti-Nader forces in the Democratic Party are being joined by former Nader supporters in what the maverick candidate calls a cabal. Funding for the elaborate scheme to strip anti-war and Green voters from Nader comes from the corporate rich: George Soros, powerful currency speculator (Soros Fund Management LLC) and billionaire benefactor (Open Society Institute), his friend Peter Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corp., Rob Glaser, founder and CEO of RealNetworks, Rob McKay, president of the McKay Family Foundation, and benefactors Lewis and Dorothy Cullman. (1) These are the powerful Fat Cats who fund the so-called Section 527 groups that provided support to the candidates in the Democratic Party primaries, without officially being connected to either the candidate or the Party. Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code provides a loophole for fat cats to evade caps on political donations. With the primaries over, both the 527s and the former candidates are sitting on a ton of unused cash that can be used for monkey-wrenching both the Green Party voters and the independent ballot petitioning by Nader followers. The latest entry into the psy ops war against Nader is the National Progress Fund, which plans to run TV ads in six battleground states, featuring people who voted for Nader in 2000 who now say they regret their votes. A similar theme is projected on their website called The NaderFactor.com. The 527 group, formed by major operatives in the Democratic Party, was announced at the very moment that Nader was meeting with Kerry, a symbolic gesture equivalent to leaving a horse's head in Nader's bed. (2) A preview of the first TV commercial can be seen at www.The NaderFactor.com. Bob Schick, a high school English teacher from Ohio, says: ''Four years ago, I supported Ralph Nader because he stood for the issues I believed in: a clean environment, civil rights, and a sensible foreign policy,'' Schick says. ''But now, after seeing how quickly and thoroughly the Bush administration has wounded our country - there's more pollution, an economy that sends our jobs overseas, and a war I have serious questions about - I feel I made a mistake.'' (3) The appeal is clearly aimed at those who might regard Nader as the real anti-war candidate. The website urges other repentant Nader voters to contact the National Progress Fund to offer their own disavowal of Nader. Slept with Nader woke up with Bush in 2000? is one of the slogans on the site. A senior Kerry aide stressed that the group is -- quote -- completely independent of the campaign, but Nader has asked Kerry to disavow the effort to create dissension in the ranks of supporters using testimonials of former Nader voters who have repented. The new National Progress Fund brings together the key staff (and undoubtedly unspent cash) of the Howard Dean, Gen. Wesley Clark, and Dick Gephardt campaigns. The group is run by Tricia Enright, who was spokeswoman for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, David Jones, chief fund-raiser for Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and John Hlinko, who led the Draft Wesley Clark Internet movement. By using the staff and cash of his former rivals, Kerry gets to go around saying, I'm not going to ask Nader to drop out--he has as much right to run--but I'm going to make the case for voting for me. (4) In the meantime, the 527 makes the slightly more negative case with the powerful mea culpa testimonials of regretful Nader voters. Enright said they planned to start airing targeted television ads next week in as many as six states, including Florida. The fund will focus its advertising firepower on six states that were decided by 2 percentage points or less in 2000 -- Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa, Oregon, Wisconsin and New Mexico. Bush carried the first two; Al Gore carried the latter four. As CBS has reported there are three other 527 groups already involved in the anti-Nader effort. Democrats clearly hope Nader doesn't get on the ballot, particularly in the battleground states. According to Sarah Leonard, spokesperson for the Democratic organizations America Votes, ACT and the Media Fund, they are keeping an eye on Nader's efforts. If we think it gets to the point where we need to step in and mobilize to make sure he doesn't get on the ballot, then we will, she says. (5) America Votes (527) is an umbrella group for coordinating other 527s. Twenty-two of the organizations have each kicked in $50,000 to finance an umbrella organization. America Votes is run by Cecile
Re: The Nader Factor: Democrat Fat Cats toy with anti-war voters
Slept with Nader woke up with Bush in 2000? The Nader Factor: Democrat Fat Cats toy with anti-war voters By Walt Contreras Sheasby snip By using the staff and cash of his former rivals, Kerry gets to go around saying, I'm not going to ask Nader to drop out--he has as much right to run--but I'm going to make the case for voting for me. (4) It seems, though, that the Kerry camp is still only making the case for voting against Nader, rather than voting for Kerry. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: [Marxism] Nader lauds Kerry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ralph Nader all but endorsed John Kerry for president in an interview yesterday with the New York Times, I don't want to give away too many of the details that I have in an upcoming Swans article on the attacks on Ralph Nader, but suffice it to say that Nader practically endorsed Kucinich in the primaries and said things about Howard Dean that were tantamount to an endorsement. It is my interpretation that he decided to run after it became obvious that the DLC powers in the Democratic Party, who really exercise hegemony, would never get behind Dean and would pressure Kerry to adopt their pro-business and pro-war agenda. As Mark Lause pointed out on Marxmail, the fact that he is running is critical not the tactful remarks directed toward Kerry. If he decides, on the other hand, to pursue a safe state strategy, then the left would be wise to subject him to a strong critique. Speaking of Swans, here's something from an article by Howie Hawkins that appeared in a recent issue that clarifies some of these questions: There Never Were Any Good Old Days In The Democratic Party by Howie Hawkins March 1, 2004 A liberation movement for the Democratic Party is one of the goals Ralph Nader stated for his campaign in the question and answer period of his February 23 press conference announcing his 2004 independent presidential candidacy. He went on to a lament that progressives had let their Democratic Party slip away to corporate interests since about 1980. While Nader is certainly correct to say that the Democrats are more thoroughly corporatized than ever, perpetuating the myth that the Democrats were ever a progressive party undermines the cause of independent progressive politics and his own campaign. Indeed, whatever his intentions, Nader implicitly gave wavering voters permission to vote for Gore in 2000 with such statements as the Democrats could take back Green votes by going back to their progressive roots, and that one positive result of his campaign would be to create a spillover vote down the ticket to help elect Democrats to Congress. In 2000 and now again in 2004, Nader seems to be underselling his own prospects by giving the Democrats more credit and import than they deserve. Nader had far more support and sympathy than the final 3% vote on Election Day in 2000 indicated. A Zogby poll found that 18 percent of the population seriously considered voting for Nader. An analysis of the National Election Study data by Harvard political scientist Barry Burden shows that only 9% of the people who thought Nader was the best candidate actually voted for him. If people had not voted strategically for the lesser evil, Nader would have had over 30 million votes instead of 3 million and might have won the election, especially if he had been allowed in the debates. full: http://www.swans.com/library/art10/hhawk01.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Nader lauds Kerry
Ralph Nader all but endorsed John Kerry for president in an interview yesterday with the New York Times, effectively undercutting those of his supporters who want to define his candidacy as a sharp break with the Democrats. Nader told the Times that Kerry was very presidential, and indicated he was planning a decidedly different strategy from the one he pursued in 2000 against (Al) Gore, whom he often ridiculed as symbolizing the corporatization that he said made the Democratic Party indistinguishable on many issues from the Republican Party. Nader, it would seem, is ready to act as the Democratic candidates stalking horse, attacking President Bush, primarily, rather than trying to hold Mr. Kerry's feet to the fire (going) after Bush in ways that we could not, satisfied Kerry aides told the Times. Conceived of in this fashion, a Nader campaign would in effect tell disenchanted liberal and antiwar voters that Kerry, despite his reluctance to go after Bush on Iraq and other issues, was the lesser evil and deserving of the presidency. The Democrats can probably live with this, short of Nader dropping out of the race. New York Times URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/campaign/20KERR.html Also available: http://www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting. 1
The most compelling reason to vote for Nader
Vanity Fair, May 2004 Unsafe On Any Ballot By Christopher Hitchens Democrats are furious that Ralph Nader, whose last presidential bid helped put George W. Bush in office, is running again. Equally dismaying, the author finds, is Naders backing from a crackpot group with ties to Pat Buchanan, Lyndon LaRouche, and Louis Farrakhan For me, it was all over as soon as it began. The day after he announced himself as a candidate for president on Meet the Press, Ralph Nader held a press conference at which he said, I think this may be the only candidacy in our memory that is opposed overwhelmingly by people who agree with us on the issues. Hold it right there, Ralph. First, dont you realize that politicians who start to refer to themselves in the plural, as in the royal we, are often manifesting an alarming symptom? (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher started to employ this distressing locution shortly before the members of her own Cabinet began to stir nervously and finally decided to call for the men in white coats.) Second, if by we and us you really meant to say yourself and your allies in this enterprise, then you should not complain if its pointed out who those allies actually turn out to be. Third, by stating that your campaign is opposed overwhelmingly by people who agree with us on the issues, do you mean to imply the corollary, which is that you will appeal to those who dont agree with you on the issues? (clip) And a slight secret about Ralph Nader is the extent of his conservatism. The last time I saw him up close, he was the guest at Grover Norquists now famous Wednesday Morning gathering, where Washingtons disparate conservative groups meetby invitation only, and off the recordunder one ceiling. He gave them a sincere talking-to, pointing out that their favorite systemfree market capitalismwas undermining their professedly favorite values. I remember particularly how he listed the businessmen who make money by piping cable porn into hotel rooms. (He rolled this out again on Meet the Press.) Nader was the only serious candidate in the last presidential election who had favored the impeachment, on moral and ethical grounds, of Bill Clinton. When asked about his stand on gay and transgender rights and all that, he responds gruffly that he isnt much interested in gonadal politics. He has often made a united front with conservatives like Norquist, and even more right-wing individuals like Paul Weyrich, on matters such as term limits and congressional pay raises. When I asked Grover about Ralphs prospects of attracting Republicans, incidentally, he told me that he thought a Nader campaign just might appeal to some of the former Buchanan winganti-trade and anti-interventionist (not to forget anti-immigrant). So Nader and Buchanan might as well run for each others votes, or skip all that and just take in each others washing. full: http://www.ex-iwp.org/docs/2004/vanity_fair.htm -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Comments on Hitchens versus Nader
Unsafe On Any Ballot By Christopher Hitchens the multiple hypocrisies and evasions of Mr. Hitchens, who once called himself a socialist but eagerly enlisted in the clash of civilizations on the side of the neo-cons with the likes of Tom Friedman, are by now so twisted it's a fool's errand to attempt to untangle them, but two threads dangle tantalizingly among the participles in his latest denunciation of anyone to the left of himself as -- too far right! 1. It's somehow sinful or sinister for Nader to speak to a salon of GOPers run by Grover Norquist but Hitchens himself feels comfortable enough in that company to call Norquist by his first name. 2. It was good and generous of Nader to agree with Hitchens except on the issue of impeachment of Clinton. What most has Hitchens's rhetorical panties in a bunch is his fear the Democrats, with Nader sniping at them on the war, will abandon their pledge of allegience to the Empire, leaving Hitchens naked and snivelling as its last true champion from his redoubt at Vanity Fair. Douglas L. Vaughan, Jr. Investigations for Print, Film Electronic Media 3140 W. 32nd Ave. Denver CO 80211 303-455-9429 -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Ralph Nader interview
Salon: Liberal Democrats are fixated this year on one thing: beating Bush. Do you consider that narrow and shortsighted? Nader: Yes. I don't think they can beat Bush by themselves. I think they need a demonstration effect represented in part by this candidacy. We'll show them ways and modes to beat Bush that they can pick up and run with. Just like Michael Moore did in endorsing Wesley Clark when he raised the deserter issue. The two major factors that have been pushing Bush on the defensive have not come from Democrats. It's been Richard Clarke and Michael Moore. Salon: There was an article in the Dallas Morning News a couple of weeks ago that claimed that a substantial amount of the money coming into your campaign is from Republican donors to President Bush ... Nader: [interrupting] No, you have to read that article very carefully. It's not true at all. As a matter of fact, read the New York Times yesterday. John Tierney, he goes through that [recounting an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity shows that only about 3 percent of Nader's fundraising is coming from donors with ties to the Republican Party, and that some of those donors have personal ties to Nader]. Salon: In 2000, you were on the ballot in 43 states with the backing of the Green Party. Running as an independent, will you be able to get on the ballot in a similar number of states? Nader: Yes, we will get on the ballot in at least 43 states. We just missed last time in several states: Oklahoma, Idaho, South Dakota. We're going to get on the ballot in those states. Salon: Will this be a volunteer signature-gathering effort? Nader: As much as possible, yeah. Salon: You've said you're not interested in the Green Party's nomination this time around, or that of the Reform Party, which has offered you its nomination, or the Natural Law Party as well. Why have you decided to reject those, and does that mean a blanket rejection, given that these parties could give you ballot access in at least half the states? Nader: First of all, the Green Party is not going to make up its mind till June. So that's their problem, not mine. They're split three ways. A small number don't want a candidate for the presidential election. The second category of magnitude want restrictions on the candidates -- stay out of the close states like Oregon and Washington state. And the third want an all-out run. But you can't wait till June because the ballot deadlines are closed in some states or closing. The other point is, this is an independent [campaign]. I'm appealing to independent voters. It's OK to get supported by other parties, but if you take their nomination then you're not [independent]. At least in those states, you're not an independent candidate. One out of every three people in this country call themselves independent. Salon: You reject the position of those in the Green Party who say that you should only run in safe states, either Democratic or Republican. You intend to run even in states that are considered swing states. Why? Nader: Because if they're trying to build a party, they've got to go all out in 50 states. It feeds a lot of cynicism to say to people in Wisconsin, Well, you're a close state so we're not going to campaign all out. That is the first step toward being indentured to the Democratic Party. That's the only reason they would not campaign in close states. full: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/04/12/nader/index.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Kerry in '72: Be Your Own Ralph Nader
* Friday, March 5, 2004 In '72 speech, a different kind of Kerry By Matthew Kelly, The Dartmouth Staff Probable Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry will likely face a challenge on the left from Ralph Nader soon, but 32 years ago, Kerry showered his possible electoral spoiler with praise in a speech at the College. Kerry implored Dartmouth students to be their own Ralph Nader in opposing the Vietnam War, urging the audience to break the cycle of non-involvement. Kerry, who had recently served as president of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, spoke on Jan. 10, 1972 at the Top of the Hop, where he urged students and Americans who opposed the Vietnam War to involve themselves in politics with greater zeal. Regarding Ralph Nader, Kerry said that opponents of the war must be public citizens in every aspect of our lives, as Kerry apparently thought Nader did. Kerry also took then-controversial positions relating to those who fled the draft. He favored amnesty and repatriation for deserters and draft dodgers, although he doubted that Americans would accept his stance. In order to convince the country to give amnesty to deserters, Kerry proposed repatriation contingent on some sort of national service. Although Kerry's remarks were controversial at the time, Russell Caplan '72, former executive editor of The Dartmouth, said time has healed many of the scars of Vietnam. Indeed, President Jimmy Carter followed through on a campaign promise just a day after his inauguration by granting a pardon to those who avoided the draft by either not registering or avoiding the war. Kerry has shrewdly avoided publicly criticizing President Bush's National Guard service, which some critics of the president have dismissed as akin to draft dodging. But, Kerry has no doubt benefited from the sharp contrast between their Vietnam experiences. I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard, Kerry told Fox News recently. Those are choices people make. Caplan said that Dartmouth as a whole was largely divided on the issue of the Vietnam War during his time. On the one hand, Larry Adelman '73, the author of the article, was a rabid peace activist who would wear anti-war armbands to class. On the pro-war side, the group Students Behind Dartmouth was formed in 1968 to counterbalance liberal activists. Although the College was split roughly 50-50 on the issue of the war, Caplan said that the campus never approached experiencing riots on the scale of those that paralyzed Columbia University in 1968. Dartmouth didn't do that because it had more of a conservative student body and alumni, and it was in an isolated location and easier to contain, Caplan said. In his 1972 speech, Kerry lashed at then-President Richard Nixon, claiming that he was personally responsible for over 130,000 Vietnam casualties a month, although Kerry also predicted reelection. He also criticized Nixon for trying to request the return of prisoners of war before the war ended. Ironically, Kerry has worked with Arizona Sen. John McCain on lingering Vietnam POW/MIA issues during their time in the Senate. Kerry had vaulted into the national spotlight after testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 1971, where he famously asked, How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? This quote was featured in the upper right corner of The Dartmouth, where editors would normally place humorous one-liners, according to Caplan. The Kerry campaign declined to comment Thursday. http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2004030501040 * John Kerry Then: Hear Kerry's Historic 1971 Testimony Against the Vietnam War, February 20, 2004: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/20/1535232. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
A Message to America's Students from Ralph Nader
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 14:45:32 -0400 Subject: Nader for President: A Message to America's Students from Ralph Nader List-Subscribe: http://lists.6is9.org/mailman/listinfo/updates, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Id: The general updates list for the Nader for President 2004 Campaign updates.lists.votenader.org MESSAGE TO AMERICA'S STUDENTS FROM RALPH NADER Nader: The War, The Draft, Your Future We have been down this road before. U.S. troops sent to war half a world away. American foreign policy controlled by an arrogant elite, bent on projecting military power around the globe. A public misled into supporting an unconstitutional war founded on deceit and fabrications. As the death toll mounts, we hear claims that the war is nearly won, that victory is just around the corner. But victory never arrives. As the public loses confidence in the government, the government questions the patriotism of any who express doubt about the war. When a presidential election arrives, both the Democrat and Republican nominees embrace the policy of continued war. The military draft comes to dominate the lives of America's young, and vast numbers who believe the war to be a senseless blunder are faced with fighting a war they do not believe in, or facing exile or prison. The year was 1968. Because voters had no choice that November, the Vietnam War continued for another six years. Hundreds of thousands of Americans like you died, were maimed, or suffered from diseases like malaria. A far greater number of Vietnamese died. Today, the war is in the quicksands and alleys of Iraq. Once again, under the pressure of a determined resistance, we see an American war policy being slowly torn apart at the seams, while the candidates urge us to stay the course in this tragic misadventure. Today's Presidential candidates are not Nixon and Humphrey, they are now Bush and Kerry. Once again, there is one overriding truth: If war is the only choice in this election, then war we will have. Today enlistments in the Reserves and National Guard are declining. The Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, as the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place. Young Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run over their generation in the same way that the Vietnam War devastated the lives of those who came of age in the sixties. I am running for President, and have been against this war from the beginning. We must not waste lives in order to control and waste more oil. Stand with us and we may yet salvage your future and Americas' future from this looming disaster. - Ralph Nader How You Can Get Involved: We, the young organizers of Nader for President in 2004 campaign, need your help to make Ralph Nader's voice part of the national debate in 2004. Here is what you can do: 1. Forward this email to every list and young person you know, or go to http://www.votenader.org/sfn/message_on_iraq_war.php and send a link to the page out to them. 2. Help get Ralph on the ballot. Go to our ballot access webpage at http://www.votenader.org and connect with students and organizers statewide to obtain the necessary signatures. 3. Join the effort in Texas and North Carolina. We need BIG help in the next 5 weeks to get Ralph on the ballot in Texas and North Carolina (we need to collect 80,000 signatures in each state.) Please contact anyone you know in those two states and urge them to join our petition drives. [http://www.votenader.org/roadtrip/]. 4. Start a Students for Nader Chapter and begin organizing students at your school. Get started by logging onto our students for Nader webpage [http://www.votenader.org/sfn/index.php]. 5. Register to Vote: If you're 18 or will be 18 by Nov. 2, 2004, please register to vote by clicking on this link [http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_register.php]. P.O. Box 18002, Washington, DC 20036 http://www.votenader.org -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Daschle Gets His Own Nader
* Daschle Gets His Own Nader By Brian Faler Monday, April 5, 2004; Page A04 Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) has what some Democrats might call a Ralph Nader problem. The Senate minority leader, who was already facing a tough reelection fight this year, must now contend with a Native American newspaper publisher who has decided to run for Daschle's seat as an independent. Tim Giago, editor and publisher of the Lakota Journal, announced that he is ditching his plans to run in the state's Democratic primary -- where he probably would have been trounced -- and, instead, will challenge Daschle and Republican John Thune in the general election. Giago told the Argus Leader, a newspaper in Sioux Falls, S.D., that the decision will help focus public attention on Native American concerns. Our issues need to be analyzed, put on the table and discussed, he said. Giago needs to collect more than 3,000 signatures to get his name on the ballot. His decision likely will complicate Daschle's bid. South Dakota is home to about 60,000 Native Americans, the vast majority of whom vote Democratic. Thune, a former congressman, lost his 2002 bid to unseat Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) by just 524 votes. Johnson won overwhelmingly among Native Americans. . . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50162-2004Apr4.html * -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Nader the Condorcet Winner in 2000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/27/2004 2:17:18 PM That Ralph Nader turned out to be the Condorcet Winner in 2000 shows how unusual the 2000 election was, according to Bruce C. Burden: One of the most stringent methods of selecting a candidate was proposed by the Marquis de Condorcet more than 200 years ago. The Condorcet criterion is a desirable method of choosing among multiple candidates because it sets the threshold of victory high. Condorcet argued that a winning alternative ought to be capable of defeating all other alternative in head-to-head comparisons. That is, A should be the victor only if she beats both B and C in paired situations. . . . National Election Study data from 2000 make it possible to conduct a crude analysis of strategic voting. I follow a long line of research that uses rankings of the candidates on the traditional feeling thermometers as estimates of the relative ordinal utilities each person has for each candidate. Thermometers are reasonable proxies for respondents' utilities for the candidates and predict the vote well (Abramson et al. 1992, 1995, 2000; Brams and Fishburn 1983; Brams and Merrill 1994; Kiewiet 1979; Ordeshook and Zeng 1997; Palfrey and Poole 1987; Weisberg and Grofman 1981). Abramson and colleagues (1995) show that the winners of the popular and electoral vote in three notable third party elections -- 1968, 1980, and 1992 -- were all Condorcet winners. (Minor Parties in the 2000 Presidential Election, 2-3, http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/burdosu.pdf) Yoshie first half of condorcet's 1785 essay discusses what today is called 'arrow's paradox', second half discusses paired election idea... condorcet's idea was all but unknown prior to duncan black's work at mid-20th century (coincident to that of kenneth arrow), see his book _theory of committees and elections_..., black suggested that he was doing 'pure theorizing about politics'... interesting that both arrow black go against generally negative grain of most public/rational/social choice thinking about democracy/majoritarianism... arrow wished that his conclusion would have been that majority voting could have been shown to produce set of wholly consistent choices, black held that majority principle should be adopted if one exists/can be found... black/condorect offers some social/rational/public choice theorists (bernard grofman, scot feld, h. p. young, among others) a sense of optimism re. collective judgments, they can argue that forming sound collective judgment depends upon individual voter competence voting rules architecture (of course, reliance upon impersonal vote-counting mechanisms departs greatly from people interacting discussing with one another)... studies such as burden's stem from william riker's postulation that teddy roosevelt would have been condorcet winner in 1912 prez election (woodrow wilson was plurality winner, incumbent william howard taft was third candidate)... use of 'feeling thermometers' - do you feel hot or cold about candidate A, 100 = hottest, 0 = coldest - problematic as almost all responses glob around 25, 50, 75... abramson (paul) and colleagues (who must be john aldrich david rohde as three have been doing election studies entitled _change and continuity_ for some time) concluded that gore would have been 2000 condorect winner, i've seen a couple of other studies concluding same... michael hoover
Nader the Condorcet Winner in 2000
The virtue of the Condorcet method is its ability to eliminate the pressure on voters to vote to defeat the least desirable candidate rather than reveal their true preferences, by allowing voters to rank the candidates (like Instant Runoff Voting) and by refusing to eliminate the candidate with the least first choices (unlike Instant Runoff Voting). That Ralph Nader turned out to be the Condorcet Winner in 2000 shows how unusual the 2000 election was, according to Bruce C. Burden: * Two common methods are majority and plurality rule. Majority rule would have failed in 2000 because no candidate won 50% of the popular vote. And plurality rule would have elected Gore as he clearly won the popular vote. And neither majority nor plurality rule is more natural than or superior to more complicated methods. . . . [T]he Founders chose to create the Electoral College to choose presidents. Bush won the 2000 election because he won a majority of electoral votes, after a serious of legal battles in Florida held him over the 270 required for victory. One might wonder whether this rather unique method of election selected the same winner that other aggregation schemes might or whether Bush's victory was idiosyncratic to the particular set of institutions and events that put him into office. One of the most stringent methods of selecting a candidate was proposed by the Marquis de Condorcet more than 200 years ago. The Condorcet criterion is a desirable method of choosing among multiple candidates because it sets the threshold of victory high. Condorcet argued that a winning alternative ought to be capable of defeating all other alternative in head-to-head comparisons. That is, A should be the victor only if she beats both B and C in paired situations. . . . National Election Study data from 2000 make it possible to conduct a crude analysis of strategic voting. I follow a long line of research that uses rankings of the candidates on the traditional feeling thermometers as estimates of the relative ordinal utilities each person has for each candidate. Thermometers are reasonable proxies for respondents' utilities for the candidates and predict the vote well (Abramson et al. 1992, 1995, 2000; Brams and Fishburn 1983; Brams and Merrill 1994; Kiewiet 1979; Ordeshook and Zeng 1997; Palfrey and Poole 1987; Weisberg and Grofman 1981). Abramson and colleagues (1995) show that the winners of the popular and electoral vote in three notable third party elections -- 1968, 1980, and 1992 -- were all Condorcet winners. That is, the Electoral College victor also would have won using Condorcet's standard of beating each of the other candidates in head-to-head comparisons. Using their approach, I have verified that Clinton was easily the Condorcet winner in 1996 as well. It is reassuring that different voting schemes -- simple plurality rule, the Electoral College, the Condorcet criterion, and perhaps even approval voting -- all select the same candidate in each of the last four elections with significant minor parties (Brams and Fishburn 1983; Brams and Merrill 1994; Kiewiet 1979). Indeed, it is remarkable that every presidential election for which adequate survey data exist seems to have chosen the Condorcet winner, regardless of minor party showings. This is satisfying in part because no voting method is ideal and the Condorcet method appears to be one of the most stringent as a Condorcet winner does not even exist in many settings. The 2000 election is not so tidy. Not only did George W. Bush not take the popular vote, but the data clearly show that he was not the Condorcet winner either. This is apparently the first time in the survey era that this has happened. Moreover, it is quite possible that the winner of the popular vote -- Al Gore -- was also not the Condorcet winner. Examining the pre-election rankings, Nader beats Buchanan (659-240), Gore (527-500), and Bush (562-491), thus making him the Condorcet winner.3 Nearly every other method makes Gore the winner. Running through the list of voting methods that are commonly discussed in textbooks on the subject (e.g., Shepsle and Bonchek 1997), Gore wins whether using a plurality runoff, sequential runoff, Borda count, or approval voting.4 The 2000 election thus represents a highly unusual event in modern U.S. politics as the Electoral College and ensuing legal battles surrounding Florida are perhaps the only method that would result in George W. Bush's election. (Minor Parties in the 2000 Presidential Election, 2-3, http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/burdosu.pdf) * The main points of Burden's essay is (1) that George W. Bush could _not_ have won the election by _any_ voting method -- he won only because of the Supreme Court's intervention and Al Gore's acquiescence to it; (2) Bush not only lost the popular vote but was nearly the Condocet _loser _in head-to-head pairings with each of other candidates (Burden, 10); (3) _before
Re: Nader the Condorcet Winner in 2000
of course, the main parties won't change the current electoral system as long as they both think they gain from it (and there's no serious pressure on them to change). So don't expect Condorcet's criterion to apply in practice. Jim D. -Original Message- From: Yoshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 3/27/2004 11:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [PEN-L] Nader the Condorcet Winner in 2000 The virtue of the Condorcet method is its ability to eliminate the pressure on voters to vote to defeat the least desirable candidate rather than reveal their true preferences, by allowing voters to rank the candidates (like Instant Runoff Voting) and by refusing to eliminate the candidate with the least first choices (unlike Instant Runoff Voting). That Ralph Nader turned out to be the Condorcet Winner in 2000 shows how unusual the 2000 election was, according to Bruce C. Burden: * Two common methods are majority and plurality rule. Majority rule would have failed in 2000 because no candidate won 50% of the popular vote. And plurality rule would have elected Gore as he clearly won the popular vote. And neither majority nor plurality rule is more natural than or superior to more complicated methods. . . . [T]he Founders chose to create the Electoral College to choose presidents. Bush won the 2000 election because he won a majority of electoral votes, after a serious of legal battles in Florida held him over the 270 required for victory. One might wonder whether this rather unique method of election selected the same winner that other aggregation schemes might or whether Bush's victory was idiosyncratic to the particular set of institutions and events that put him into office. One of the most stringent methods of selecting a candidate was proposed by the Marquis de Condorcet more than 200 years ago. The Condorcet criterion is a desirable method of choosing among multiple candidates because it sets the threshold of victory high. Condorcet argued that a winning alternative ought to be capable of defeating all other alternative in head-to-head comparisons. That is, A should be the victor only if she beats both B and C in paired situations. . . . National Election Study data from 2000 make it possible to conduct a crude analysis of strategic voting. I follow a long line of research that uses rankings of the candidates on the traditional feeling thermometers as estimates of the relative ordinal utilities each person has for each candidate. Thermometers are reasonable proxies for respondents' utilities for the candidates and predict the vote well (Abramson et al. 1992, 1995, 2000; Brams and Fishburn 1983; Brams and Merrill 1994; Kiewiet 1979; Ordeshook and Zeng 1997; Palfrey and Poole 1987; Weisberg and Grofman 1981). Abramson and colleagues (1995) show that the winners of the popular and electoral vote in three notable third party elections -- 1968, 1980, and 1992 -- were all Condorcet winners. That is, the Electoral College victor also would have won using Condorcet's standard of beating each of the other candidates in head-to-head comparisons. Using their approach, I have verified that Clinton was easily the Condorcet winner in 1996 as well. It is reassuring that different voting schemes -- simple plurality rule, the Electoral College, the Condorcet criterion, and perhaps even approval voting -- all select the same candidate in each of the last four elections with significant minor parties (Brams and Fishburn 1983; Brams and Merrill 1994; Kiewiet 1979). Indeed, it is remarkable that every presidential election for which adequate survey data exist seems to have chosen the Condorcet winner, regardless of minor party showings. This is satisfying in part because no voting method is ideal and the Condorcet method appears to be one of the most stringent as a Condorcet winner does not even exist in many settings. The 2000 election is not so tidy. Not only did George W. Bush not take the popular vote, but the data clearly show that he was not the Condorcet winner either. This is apparently the first time in the survey era that this has happened. Moreover, it is quite possible that the winner of the popular vote -- Al Gore -- was also not the Condorcet winner. Examining the pre-election rankings, Nader beats Buchanan (659-240), Gore (527-500), and Bush (562-491
Nader Begins Push to Qualify for State Ballots
* Nader Begins Push to Qualify for State Ballots Wed Mar 24, 2004 01:43 PM ET By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ralph Nader's wild-card presidential bid is gearing up over the next few months for its biggest challenge -- navigating a maze of local regulations and roadblocks to qualify for the ballot in all 50 states. Nader, whose third-party White House run in 2000 was blamed by many Democrats for helping elect President Bush, is hoping to collect 1.5 million signatures of registered voters on petitions for ballot access nationwide -- more than enough to ensure he will make Democrats nervous again this year. Our goal is to be on the ballot in all 50 states and we're pretty confident we can do it, said Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese, adding 7,000 volunteers have signed up nationwide to gather signatures for the independent bid. . . . TOUGHEST CHALLENGE: TEXAS The first deadline and toughest challenge for Nader will be Texas, where by May 10 he must collect 64,000 valid signatures from registered Texans who did not vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. Texas is not alone in setting a steep bar for White House hopefuls -- in Oklahoma, 37,027 valid signatures are needed by July 15. But a leading ballot access expert says Nader should be able to get his name on all 50 state ballots. It's not a major hurdle for people with either a substantial amount of money or a substantial number of volunteers to get signatures, said Richard Winger, editor of the Ballot Access News newsletter in San Francisco. He said Nader needs 620,000 valid signatures to qualify in all 50 states -- less than half of his stated goal -- and that recent third-party candidates like Ross Perot and the Libertarian Party have had success. If it was all that hard the Libertarians wouldn't have done it, he said. The five toughest states for ballot access -- Texas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Indiana and North Carolina -- are all heavily Republican and Nader's presence would have little effect on the outcome. . . . http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNewsstoryID=4649448 * -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Nader at 12% says Oz
What is this guy's programme? http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Nader at 12% says Oz
At: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9060859%255E1702,00.html I fully realise that talking to a self-professed Stalinist-Hoxhaist, as though he/she/it is sane, is probably quite taboo - quite infra-dig - amongst true intellectuals - but could you possible try? Just treat me like an ignorant we will get on fine! MY COMMUNITY [The 0.005% of political activists who retain the True Hoxhaite Faith Scientific Knowledge of All Time Ages - naturally) WANTS NEEDS TO KNOW!! What is this guy's programme? My Googlie skills with a keyboard may be suspect, but I do not get a clear programme with my paltry searches (Goggle is not even up to Pubmed sort of sensitivity specificity in searching). I also get a Trot attack which is not un-reasonable to me - qualified support) at: http://www.labournet.org.uk/so/40usa2.html So what's this all about then? Again, Sorry MP _ Just trying to get to understand this Nader thing! Thanks, H
Nader on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Former Green Party Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader Gives his First Major Address on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Tuesday, June 17th, 2003: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/17/1359238 and http://www.democracynow.org/transcripts/nader.shtml. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Nader-Am I missing the Point(s)?
Hello Michael: Sincerely, am not trying to stir the pot. Of course given the situation, it is not unreasonable that participants feel agitated on this matter. I do fully respect applaud your sterling efforts to keep sane discussion here - rather than a virulent insanity - on this list. But a certain degree of heat on this one is probably inevitable, possibly healthy? Forgive me participants, but your USA scene is so odd I really do need help. The thesis seems to be that: Kerry not very dissimilar to Bush. OK - I agree - Kerry is pretty pro-USA-imperialist. But: What is the Nader programme all about? Is the only reason to vote for him that it is not allowing the avalanche of votes for the Dems? What does/whom does Nader represent? Is the recent kerfuffle/postings on the list about the 3rd party force, suggesting that Nader is that? Sorry to be so slow. Thanks, Hari
Abraham Lincoln, the Corporations and Ralph Nader
According to the Socialist Worker, The Green Party campaign of Ralph Nader for president in 2000 was a lightning rod for grievances throughout U.S. society - and helped to bring together activists from different movements who had never worked together before. But while elections do matter, struggle matters more. That's how our side has won in the past--and will again in the future. (November 8, 2002). According to Kevin Phillips, in his new book Wealth Democracy, it was in January, 2000, on the eve of the stock market crash, that a movement to draft Ralph Nader to run for president (not exactly a mainstream crowd, he says) - rallied at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, at which they reportedly read from a letter of November 21st, 1864, written by Abraham Lincoln to Colonel William F. Elkins. Looking beyond the American civil war (1861-65), Abraham Lincoln had prophesied: I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. Yea, verily, amen. Phillips then claims the Lincoln passage which was read out by the Nader supporters, and often quoted by anti-corp people, had been taken from the book Democracy At Risk - Rescuing Main street from Wall street by Jeff Gates, a Georgia Green Party activist, who, in turn, got it from page 40 in The Lincoln Encyclopedia by Archer H. Shaw (New York: Macmillan, 1950). For his part, Archer H. Shaw sourced the quote to p. 954 of Volume 2 of Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait, by Emanuel Hertz (New York: Horace Liveright Inc, 1931) but the full quote actually provided by Hertz himself was: Yes, we may all congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its close. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. The best blood of the flower of American youth has been freely offered upon our country's altar that the nation might live. It has indeed been a trying hour for the republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless. Some American historians questioned the authenticity of this exact quote. So did folksinger Pete Seeger, who sent a fax to the Abraham Lincoln Association seeking verification. Correctly so, because no such letter actually exists in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, a chronological compilation with supplements compiled by the Abraham Lincoln Association. The quote was in fact originally cited in Hertz's 1931 book without providing any date, source, or other identifying information. Caroline Thomas Harnsberger quoted it in her book The Lincoln Treasury (Wilcox Follett Co., 1950) citing the earliest known documentation for it by George H. Shibley in The Money Question (Chicago: Stable Money Publishing Company, 1896), but she said that this letter, often quoted is considered by the Abraham Lincoln Society to be spurious Emmanuel Hertz's The Hidden Lincoln; from the Letters and Papers of William H. Herndon (New York: Viking Press, 1938) says Herdon compiled many of Lincoln's utterances, written and oral, into a collection, which served as a basis for subsequent authoritative treatises on Abraham Lincoln. But Herndon himself was critical of various big-name authors who relied mainly on his compilation for primary sources: They are aiming, first, to do a superb piece of literary work; second, to make the story with the classes, as against the masses. It will result in delineating the real Lincoln about as well, as does a wax figure in the museum. Lincoln's son, Robert Todd Lincoln, who owned almost all of his father's papers, dismissed the quote as inauthentic in an unpublished letter on March 12, 1917. He said he tracked the source of the quote to a Spiritualist séance in an Iowa country town, and that the quote had supposedly been voiced by Abraham Lincoln through a medium. Robert stated [B]elief in its authenticity should therefore be held only by those who place confidence in the outgivings of so-called Mediums at the gatherings held under their auspices. Yea. He had no recollection of any person called Elkins who was a personal
Support for Nader Higher Than in 2000 + Arab-American Votes
* Published on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 by the Guardian/UK Surge in Support for Nader Spells Trouble for Kerry by Julian Borger in Washington A new poll suggested yesterday that Ralph Nader's independent presidential bid represented a serious threat to the Democratic candidate, Senator John Kerry. The New York Times and CBS News poll revealed a tight two-man race for the White House between President George Bush and Mr Kerry. Mr Bush had a narrow lead of 46% over Mr Kerry's 43% - within the poll's margin of error. But when Americans were asked about a three-man race including Mr Nader, the 70-year-old consumer activist attracted 7% support, mostly at the expense of the Democrat. In that contest, Mr Bush led Mr Kerry by 46% to 38%. Mr Nader's poll ratings are higher than at this point in the 2000 election. . . . A recent survey has found that Mr Nader, who is of Lebanese descent, has substantial support among Arab Americans in key battleground states. Polling by the Arab American Institute in Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania - home to more than 1 million Arab Americans - found that 20% supported Mr Nader. . . . http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0317-01.htm * * . . . [President of the Arab American Institute James] Zogby's brother, John, who owns Zogby International, . . . conducted the poll. The poll, taken in late February, shows Kerry with 54 percent support to 30 percent for Bush among a sample of 501 Arab Americans in Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. With independent Ralph Nader's candidacy, the numbers shift to 40 percent for Kerry, 26 percent for Nader and 25 percent for Bush. Nader is Lebanese American and has been a consistent supporter of Palestinian rights. Michigan results mirrored the national outcome in the poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. Michigan has the highest percentage of Arab Americans of any state. According to the U.S. census, there are about 116,000 Michigan residents who claim Arab ancestry. This year, Arab-American and Muslim groups are working hard to register voters and persuade their communities to get politically involved. In January, Muslims at metro Detroit mosques held voter registration drives after special prayers on Eid, an Islamic holy day. . . . (Ruby L. Bailey, James Kuhnhenn, and Niraj Warikoo, Race for President: Poll Shows Bush Losing Arab-American Voters, _Detroit Free Press_, March 13, 2004, http://www.freep.com/news/politics/vote13_20040313.htm * *ELECTION 2004 Arab-Americans will be force in presidential vote By Kelly Brewington | Sentinel Staff Writer Posted March 14, 2004 Arab-American advocates in the Orlando area are mobilizing a statewide voter-registration and education drive as George W. Bush and John Kerry prepare for a bruising campaign in this key battleground state. If a recent national poll is any indication, Arab-Americans could come out in force against President Bush in November. A poll of 501 Arab-American registered voters by Zogby International found that 67 percent think Bush is doing a poor job and 65 percent would vote against him. The results, released Friday, are driven by policies such as Bush's approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. When you have that degree of disapproval, that's a bit of a hole to get out of, said Zogby, who conducted the poll for the institute. Zogby's agency surveyed voters in Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, all of which have significant Arab-American populations and are expected to be critical states in the presidential race. In addition, the poll shows that many Arab-Americans who voted for Bush in 2000 would vote against him today. In 2000, Bush won their votes in those four states by a 46 percent to 29 percent margin, with candidate Ralph Nader picking up 13 percent. But if the vote were held today, the poll revealed, more than 200,000 Arab-American voters in those states would switch from Republican to Democrat. With a tight race expected, Florida's estimated 120,000 Arab-American voters hope to make a difference. But how they'll vote is up in the air. 'Awfully presumptuous' For starters, Central Florida's Arab-American advocates say that Democrats shouldn't assume their vote is a sure thing. In recent weeks, Democratic candidates from Orlando to Washington have been calling Taleb Salhab, one of Orlando's most outspoken Arab-American advocates, for donations. But they don't ask if they can count on his support. Instead, he said, they want to know how big a check he'll write for their campaigns. I find it awfully presumptuous, said Salhab, president of Orlando's 400-member Arab American Community Center, who has told candidates he would like to sit and chat with them about issues instead. Salhab and other activists have a message for candidates from both major parties: Assume nothing. If you want our vote, you'll need to earn it. While
Re: Support for Nader Higher Than in 2000 + Arab-American Votes
I hope that this does not reignite our wild outbreak from a couple of days ago. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Muslim-American Voters + Zogby on Arab-American Nader Voters
* Posted on Sun, Mar. 14, 2004 Muslim Americans rallying to get out vote in November By ANN PEPPER Orange County Register . . . American Arabs and Muslims always vote in large numbers. An estimated 79 percent are registered and 85 percent of those say they vote, according to a 2001 poll taken on behalf of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Political activists believe the power of their community's block vote helped put George Bush in the White House four years ago. Bush won their votes overwhelmingly in Florida, where he claimed the presidency with less than a 600-vote margin. The community cast those ballots on the advice of trusted voices such as the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Word spread to voters over the Internet, at Islamic centers and through popular, ethnic newspapers such as Al-Watan and Arab World in Anaheim, Calif., and An-Nahar in Whittier, Calif. It was what he said, particularly opposing the use of secret evidence, plus, frankly, Gore ignored us, said Omar Zaki, who oversees politics for CAIR in Anaheim. This time, their votes won't be won as easily, rank-and-file Muslim voters say. They are grasping for a better understanding of issues and candidates and a stronger say in who they will support. We want to create a model community with 100 percent voter registration, said Aslam Abdullah, a political adviser and founder of the newly minted Muslim Electorate Council of America. That's what we are aiming for. We are doing the extensive work needed to bring in as many voters as possible. It's been months now since Orange County, Calif., Muslims could go to a community event or even some private parties without running into someone with a voter registration form in hand. Registration tables pop up outside Little Gaza restaurants along Brookhurst Street. Community members are volunteering as poll workers. Imams preach on voting. Last month, about 300 Arab and Muslim voters, including Wareh and Nuru Nuru, a Garden Grove, Calif., cab driver, packed a political forum in Buena Park, Calif., where they cheered any candidate who took a strong stand on civil rights or spoke in favor of a just solution for Palestine. As an American and as a Muslim we have to worry about what is going on, said Nuru, 45, who brought his son, Nader, 15, to the forum. America is a free country, but our freedom is taken by Sept. 11 and we have to protest for all Americans. Around the edges of the room that night, community volunteers - some in hijabs - bent over voting machines, demonstrating how to use them. Candidates handed out campaign leaflets and Green Party members offered to register voters. Ralph Nader even phoned in a speech announcing his hours-old candidacy for president. . . . http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/8172873.htm * * A recent poll of Arab-American voters in four key states has some bad news for both President Bush and his Democratic challenger John Kerry. The poll shows that the percentage of Arab-Americans who believe that President Bush deserves to be re-elected is a low 28 percent. When matched up against John Kerry, Bush loses 54 percent to 30 percent.The bad news for Sen. Kerry is that when Ralph Nader's name is entered into the mix, the numbers change to 43 percent for Kerry, 27 percent for Bush, and 20 percent for Nader. The poll in question was the first in a series of tracking polls that Zogby International of New York is conducting for the Arab American Institute. This first poll, conducted in the last few days of February 2004, surveyed 501 likely Arab-American voters living in four key electoral states: Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. (The poll has a margin of error of +/-4.5 percent.) These four states were chosen because they will be among those to be hotly contested in the 2004 election and because they are also home to sizeable Arab-American populations. Together they include more than 1.1 million Arab-Americans. Given the propensity of Arab-Americans to vote in somewhat larger numbers than the average population, Arab-Americans in these four states represent a likely voter turnout of more than 510,000 voters. The Arab-American vote equals more than five percent of the overall vote in Michigan, two percent in Florida, just under two percent in Ohio and more than 1.5 percent in Pennsylvania. . . . If the election were held today, Kerry would win the Arab-American vote by a margin of 54 percent to 30 percent. In this match-up Kerry wins the support of virtually all of sub-groups of Arab-American voters. He beats President Bush among native-born Arab-Americans and immigrants and among all the major religious groupings (Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Protestants, and Muslims.) The problem for Sen. Kerry is that when Ralph Nader enters the race, he cuts significantly into Kerry's lead over Bush, reducing Kerry's total to 43 percent. Here's what happens. One-half of all Nader's voters
Re: Camejo Takes the Lead/Green Party Likes Nader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/17/04 1:43 AM I did vote for him in 2000 (in Calif.); his silence since the last election has been deafening. I will not vote for him again. If I'm going to throw away a vote I'd rather give it to Camejo or a socialist candidate. Joanna remember: electoral college, electoral college... one can live in state where dem win/loss is likely/assured and so vote can't be 'thrown away' (assuming that is legitimate notion), votes cast only have relation to other votes in state, they have no relaton to votes in other states... michael hoover
Re: Camejo Takes the Lead/Green Party Likes Nader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/17/04 7:30 AM At 10:20 PM -0500 3/16/04, Michael Hoover wrote: geez, nader could draw 2 activists and he'd top what i'd draw Well, you look adorable in a prequel to _The Blair Witch Project_. :- At 10:20 PM -0500 3/16/04, Michael Hoover wrote: but do activists really need to hear him, seems to me that non-activists need to hear him (i'd rather they heard folks mentioned above, and you as well)... First of all, Greens need to hear Nader, to rediscover their spine. It seems that they are. Yoshie sh re. bwp... wouldn't think greens would have lost spine just yet, if so, they're already on way out... 2000 polls indicated that majority of folks thought media did not give minor party candidates adequate coverage, same bound to be case this year, possible exception may be nader who (and here is conspiracy theory) media will pay attention to if it looks like he mght 'spoil' (soil?) things for kerry, in fact, media will contribute to that happening as 'it' (they?) prefers bush... above circumstance not necessarily ideological (although it is for some), rather, media has not tired of bush yet... right-wing likes to make big deal of poll indicating that large majority of reporters voted for clinton in 92 as if that is, in and of itself, indication of liberalism... in any event, we know clinton's 'liberalism' wasn't new deal/great society sort... part of media vote for clinton was generational thing... part of it was not wanting to continue to cover the same guys that they'd been covering for 12 years of reagan/bush 1... michael hoover
Re: Nader Drawing 7% (Camejo Takes the Lead/Green Party Likes Nader)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/17/04 7:51 AM Nader is now drawing 7 percent of the votes in a nationwide telephone poll of 1,206 adults, including 984 registered voters . . . taken from last Wednesday through Sunday (Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder, Nation's Direction Prompts Voters' Concern, Poll Finds, March 16, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/politics/campaign/16POLL.html). Cf. http://pollingreport.com/. And that despite the relentless attacks of the Anybody But Bush pundits on Nader and Greens. I detect a major disconnect between the ABB pundits and ordinary American voters. Yoshie one interpretation of above would be that he's already maxed out, tracking poll numbers tend to fall sharply for minor candidates during course of campaign... nader topped out at 7% in 2000 and that was prior to announcing candidacy when there was 'run ralph run' stuff going on, that circumstance is not unusual, potential candidates often look more promising as, well, potential candidates (will s/he, won't s/he)... nader was actually at 5% in some national polls within days of 2000 election, however, majority of people supporting him said that their vote was not definite... michael hoover
Re: Camejo Takes the Lead/Green Party Likes Nader
Although the latest Nader/Dem/Socialist Revolution posts are unobjectionale, this thread ingnited so much nastiness, that maybe we can drop it. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Why the Democratic Party Attacks Nader the Green Party
Among the liberal pundits who cry Anybody But Bush, it's open season on Ralph Nader and the Green Party. Some wonder why the Democratic leaders and intellectuals attack Nader and the Greens, especially given that more Democrats voted for Bush than Nader in 2000: Bush received the votes of 12 times more Democrats than Nader did, and 5.25 times more self-identified liberals than Nader did in Florida (Tim Wise, Why Nader is NOT to Blame, November 8, 2000, http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10065). The answer lies in the post-modern political science of electoral campaigns and the Democratic Party elite's aversion to working-class voters (even though working-class voters vote more Democratic than richer voters do). Attacking Green candidates in particular or the Green Party in general as an Evil Spoiler and trying to scare or guilt-trip registered Greens (and registered voters who may consider voting Green) into backing the Democratic Party make _perfect sense_. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties hunt the votes by targeting and reducing the universe of voters, i.e. excluding people who are not 'profitable' to work (Marshall Ganz, Voters in the Crosshairs, _The American Prospect_ 5.16, December 1, 1994, http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V5/16/ganz-m.html). Excluding the poorer Americans, enabling whose participation is costly, in turn allows the power elite to define the political agenda contrary to working-class interests and opinions: * _The American Prospect_ 5.16, December 1, 1994. Voters in the Crosshairs Marshall Ganz . . . For the last couple decades, campaign consultants have been perfecting ways to restrict the electorate by reducing the universe of voters, long before Ed Rollins caused a furor by claiming he paid New Jersey ministers not to encourage their congregation members to vote in the gubernatorial race last September. The computerization of voter registration files and emergence of list vendors who purchase tapes of these files and convert them into customized, campaign-specific lists make possible this new approach to targeting. Matching voter files with tapes of phone directories, ethnic surname dictionaries, county assessor records, and voter turnout reports makes it possible to generate lists of voters individually profiled by their party affiliation, age, gender, marital status, homeowner status, ethnicity, and frequency of voting. Consultant Matt Reese explains how this information is used: Targeting is a process of excluding people who are not profitable to work, so that resources are adequate to reach prime voters with enough intensity to win them. Targeting provides an ultimate lift to the voter contact process, allowing maximum concentration of resources to a minimum universe. Voter registration, for example, is rarely considered because newly registered voters are less likely to turn out than established voters. Also, it requires a ground force of volunteers or paid registrars. In the absence of an ongoing program, there are numerous problems of management, recruitment, and quality control in creating such a team for a single campaign. The effects of this new campaign ethos can be seen in a hypothetical district, where 55 percent of the registered voters are Democrats, 35 percent are Republicans, and 10 percent are independent or decline to state. The first step in applying the new strategy is to buy computer tapes that describe the district by party and by voter turnout. Of all registered voters, 24 percent have no record of voting, suggesting that they are gone, and 39 percent vote only occasionally, mainly in presidential elections. These voters are ignored because they are unlikely to turn out unless stimulated. The likely voters, a bedrock 37 percent of registered voters who vote in most elections, are the prime targets of the campaign. Among these, priority is assigned to the Democratic 10 percent, Republican 5 percent, and independent 2 percent judged to be swing voters based on their electoral or individual histories (a Republican living with a Democrat, for example). This 17 percent is targeted for persuasion and becomes the heart of the campaign, the real determiners of the issues the campaign will address. The remaining 20 percent of the electorate who are likely voters and are likely to be loyal to their parties are contacted mainly to inform them of the candidate's identity and affiliation. They are not mobilized because they are regular voters. As of election day, 63 percent of registered voters will not have been contacted by anyone. If, as is typical, only 60 percent of the eligible electorate were registered, 78 percent of the eligible voters in the district would never be contacted. These uncontacted voters are far more likely to be of lower socioeconomic status than those who are contacted. They never hear from a campaign and thus will likely stay at home on election day or vote the way they always have. . . . http
Re: Reply to Doug Henwood on Ralph Nader
Could someone explain what Ralph Nader's candidacy has to do with the development of a socialist party in the U.S.? I could swear he was a petit bourgeois who believed in the beauties of small business and competition. This seems to be more a kind of supercilious political racism on your part, showing little understanding of the meaning of petty-bourgeois or of competition. There are three kinds of radicals: those who take political responsibility, those who don't take political responsibility, and in-betweenies. Undoubtedly the personal ethical stance a person has must have something to do with class background - normally taking political responsibility requires respecting the rule of law. Nader was born in Winsted, Connecticut, on Feb. 27, 1934 to Lebanese immigrants, Mr Nathra and Mrs Rose Nader. Nathra operated a bakery and restaurant. As a child, Ralph played with David Halberstam, who's now a highly regarded journalist. Nader received an AB magna cum laude from Princeton University in 1955, and in 1958 he received a LLB with distinction from Harvard University. As a student at Harvard, Nader first researched the design of automobiles. His career began as a lawyer in Hartford, Connecticut in 1959 and from 1961-63 he lectured on history and government at the University of Hartford. In 1965-66 he received the Nieman Fellows award and was named one of ten Outstanding Young Men of Year by the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce in 1967. Between 1967-68 he returned to Princeton as a lecturer, and he continues to speak at colleges and universities across the United States. In an article titled The Safe Car You Can't Buy, which appeared in the Nation in 1959, he concluded, It is clear Detroit today is designing automobiles for style, cost, performance, and calculated obsolescence, but not-despite the 5,000,000 reported accidents, nearly 40,000 fatalities, 110,000 permanent disabilities, and 1,500,000 injuries yearly-for safety. After a stint working as a lawyer in Hartford, Connecticut, Nader headed for Washington, where he began his career as a consumer advocate. He worked for Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the Department of Labor and volunteered as an adviser to a Senate subcommittee that was studying automobile safety. In 1965, he published Unsafe at Any Speed, a best-selling indictment of the auto industry and its poor safety standards. This book indicted unsafe automobile design in general, and specifically General Motors' Corvair. When it became publicly known that General Motors had hired private detectives, in an attempt to dig up information that might discredit Nader, a Senate subcommittee that was looking into auto safety summoned the president of General Motors to explain his company's harassment, and personally apologize to Nader. The incident catapulted auto safety into the public spotlight, leading to a series of landmark laws that have prevented hundreds of thousands of motor vehicle-related deaths and injuries. Nader was henceforth typecast as the incorruptible advocate for the little guy. Largely because of Nader's initiatives, Congress passed the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Nader was also influential in the passage of 1967's Wholesome Meat Act, which called for federal inspections of beef and poultry, and imposed standards on slaughterhouses, as well as the Clean Air Act and the Freedom of Information Act. Ralph Nader stated in a recent lecture at University of Alberta on September 13, 2002 We have grown up corporate and have forgotten how to be active as citizens within a civic society. While the Stalinists, Trotskyists and Maoists were fighting with each other, Nader personally founded, or helped establish, the following organisations: American Antitrust Institute Appleseed Foundation Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest Aviation Consumer Action Project Capitol Hill News Service Center for Auto Safety Center for Insurance Research Center for Justice and Democracy Center for Science in the Public Interest Center for Study of Responsive Law Center for Women Policy Studies Citizen Advocacy Center Citizen Utility Boards Citizen Works Clean Water Action Project Congress Project Connecticut Citizen Action Group Corporate Accountability Research Group Democracy Rising Disability Rights Center Equal Justice Foundation Essential Information FANS (Fight to Advance the Nation's Sports) Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights Freedom of Information Clearinghouse Georgia Legal Watch Multinational Monitor National Citizen's Coalition for Nursing Home Reform National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest National Insurance Consumer Organization Ohio Public Interest Action Group Organization for Competitive Markets Pension Rights Center Princeton Project 55 PROD - truck safety Public Citizen Buyers Up Citizen Action Group Critical Mass Energy Project Congress Watch Global Trade Watch Health Research Group Litigation Group Tax Reform Research Group
Re: Nader
Louis wrote I was no Dean supporter, but at least with Dean you would have had a fight. Kerry is just too much of a centrist and a patrician to really mix it up. It seems to me that Kerry's anti-war activities in the early 70's was a safe deviation into sense, to steal from Alexander Pope. Dan Scanlan
Re: Camejo Takes the Lead/Green Party Likes Nader
I did vote for him in 2000 (in Calif.); his silence since the last election has been deafening. I will not vote for him again. If I'm going to throw away a vote I'd rather give it to Camejo or a socialist candidate. Joanna To vote for Kerry in California is to throw away a vote. Camejo, if he decides to run at all, will run as a VP candidate on a Nader/Camejo ticket. (As I said, Camejo has been running in primaries not to promote himself, but to push for the Green Party nomination of Nader.) Running in presidential elections costs enormous amounts of money, time, energy, etc., which only left-wing intellectuals of the Nader class can command. The last time around, it was Nader's money and the Green Party's manpower, and it will be so this time as well, unless the Green Party got enormously richer unbeknownst to me. At 10:20 PM -0500 3/16/04, Michael Hoover wrote: geez, nader could draw 2 activists and he'd top what i'd draw Well, you look adorable in a prequel to _The Blair Witch Project_. :- At 10:20 PM -0500 3/16/04, Michael Hoover wrote: but do activists really need to hear him, seems to me that non-activists need to hear him (i'd rather they heard folks mentioned above, and you as well)... First of all, Greens need to hear Nader, to rediscover their spine. It seems that they are. At 9:20 PM -0800 3/16/04, Devine, James wrote: I've never heard Nader speak, so I don't know if he's boring or not. But what was all that I heard in 2000 about large groups of college-age kids being excited by Nader? You can hear Nader speak at http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1694636. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Nader Drawing 7% (Camejo Takes the Lead/Green Party Likes Nader)
At 10:20 PM -0500 3/16/04, Michael Hoover wrote: my mother is my political barometer and she and her husband are in anybody but bush camp, she's worried (incorrectly imo) that nader will help put bush back in white house, folks like her who think that are much more important than all nation magazine articles and readers moaning about nader combined... michael hoover Nader is now drawing 7 percent of the votes in a nationwide telephone poll of 1,206 adults, including 984 registered voters . . . taken from last Wednesday through Sunday (Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder, Nation's Direction Prompts Voters' Concern, Poll Finds, March 16, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/politics/campaign/16POLL.html). Cf. http://pollingreport.com/. And that despite the relentless attacks of the Anybody But Bush pundits on Nader and Greens. I detect a major disconnect between the ABB pundits and ordinary American voters. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Nader
I've never heard Nader speak, so I don't know if he's boring or not. But what was all that I heard in 2000 about large groups of college-age kids being excited by Nader? inquiring minds want to know. I was able to catch him in Middleburg VA at the founding of the Associated State Green Parties in 1996, and in Sacramento and Chico CA in 2000. He's very compelling, funny and scholarly, in my opinion. When he's finished, you get the sense it is only because time ran out, not because he ran out of things to say. Dan Scanlan
Re: Nader
I was able to catch him in Middleburg VA at the founding of the Associated State Green Parties in 1996, and in Sacramento and Chico CA in 2000. He's very compelling, funny and scholarly, in my opinion. When he's finished, you get the sense it is only because time ran out, not because he ran out of things to say. Dan Scanlan Speaking of oratory and style, I am getting the strong sense that the Bush machine will gather momentum over the next few months. They seem to be honing in on Kerry's waffling, which there is no defense against since Kerry *does* waffle. When you get tens of millions of dollars of ads and the hard-core support of the Republican Party base deployed against a centrist candidate whom big business sees no compelling reason to support and whose appeal to working people is that he is not as bad as Bush, it is a formula for another 4 years of Bush. It will be a rerun of the Mondale, Dukakis and Gore campaigns. I was no Dean supporter, but at least with Dean you would have had a fight. Kerry is just too much of a centrist and a patrician to really mix it up. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Camejo Takes the Lead/Green Party Likes Nader
Good news for the Green Party -- Camejo taking the lead in the Green Party primaries, and the Green Party is likely to nominate the Nader/Camejo combo: * March 14, 2004 Camejo takes the lead Peter Camejo won 99 of 132 state delegates in the California primaries, garnering 75.4 percent of the vote. Even though he is only on the ballot in a handful of states, Peter is now well out in front of all other candidates in the race for the Green Party presidential nomination. . . . http://www.draftcamejo.org/ * * Over the last eight years, Nader has done more for the Green Party than anybody else, said Howard Hawkins, a Green Party organizer from Syracuse, N.Y. We should draft him and have a candidate who can be in the national debates with Bush and the expected Democratic nominee, U.S. Sen. John Kerry. Hawkins was present to represent Green Party presidential candidate Peter Camejo of California, a one-time associate of labor leader Cesar Chavez who has pledged to turn over to Nader any delegates he wins at the party's nominating convention. He said Nader has attended Green Party fund-raisers in 31 states since his controversial role in the 2000 presidential election. Representing Nader in an hourlong debate - which actually was a rather uncontentious question-and-answer session - was Tim McKee, a party activist from Manchester. He said Nader, who declared his independent run for president on Feb. 22, rejects the argument of some Greens that he should make a limited effort, avoiding states such as Florida and Ohio where a close contest is expected between Bush and Kerry. Nader considered such a strategy a schizophrenic campaign, McKee said. The amateur politics of well-intentioned people [within the Green Party] made it impossible for him to commit to that process. . . . The only voice against a Nader endorsement was Lynne Serpe, campaign manager for David Cobb of California, a lawyer who declared his candidacy for the Green Party's presidential nomination in mid-2003. She said Nader, by not seeking the party's nomination sooner, has taken himself out of the democratically contested process. . . . McKee said he would welcome a ticket that pairs Nader with Camejo as a vice presidential candidate. . . . Clearly Connecticut is going to go to Kerry, so a Nader candidacy wouldn't make much difference except building a local Green Party, McKee said. And I'd like to double or triple [the voter turnout] we've had in the past. Hawkins agreed. Nader will bring a media profile that commands attention, he said. Ralph Nader shows up and it's news. That's just the way it is. It gets us into the race. (Paul Marks, Green Party Likes Nader, March 14, 2004, http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/hc-greens0314.artmar14,1,5582163.story?coll=hc-headlines-local) * -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Camejo Takes the Lead/Green Party Likes Nader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/16/04 06:48AM Over the last eight years, Nader has done more for the Green Party than anybody else, said Howard Hawkins, a Green Party organizer from Syracuse, N.Y. We should draft him and have a candidate who can be in the national debates with Bush and the expected Democratic nominee, U.S. Sen. John Kerry. Clearly Connecticut is going to go to Kerry, so a Nader candidacy wouldn't make much difference except building a local Green Party, McKee said. And I'd like to double or triple [the voter turnout] we've had in the past. Hawkins agreed. Nader will bring a media profile that commands attention, he said. Ralph Nader shows up and it's news. That's just the way it is. It gets us into the race. Yoshie hawkins knows more about green party than me but even if he is correct, what does nader doing more than anyone else have to do with being included in prez debates, ridiculous debate commission rules require minimum of 15% average across 5 national public opinion polls, any reason to expect that nader will pull such numbers.. prez debates are both important and overrated, their impact on electoral outcomes generally stems from whatever influence that 'candidate perfomance' may have on undecided voters, percentage of undecideds this year may be less most years given ostensible polarization of electorate... prez debates are potentially crucial for minor parties for several reasons: audience reach, perceived legitimacy, post-election stuff... nader's media pull (i'm doubtful he has much given 2000 experience) will be on media terms by which elections are treated as self-contained episodes, lots of blather about being spoiler, offering little in way of promoting either his candidacy or green party (not to say that folks can't break through to other side re. both)... michael hoover
