It's not about me. It's about our BROKEN SYSTEM
Abookamongstthemany
Posts: 8,209
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/03/its-not-about-m.html#more
It's not about me. It's about our broken system.
By Ralph Nader
All Americans should have a chance to improve their country. They should not be shut out of their government by two major parties that, in varying degrees, have turned Washington into corporate-occupied territory.
With polls showing most people think our country is going in the wrong direction and that 61% of Americans believe both parties are failing, a resurgent democracy means that voters must have more choices on the presidential ballot.
My campaign for president reflects many years of accomplishments for the health, safety and well-being of the American people. That opportunity to diminish fatalities, injuries and diseases through life-saving consumer, environmental and workplace safety laws came largely in the '60s and '70s. In those decades, elected officials in Congress and in the White House were willing to listen, conduct hearings and sign into law proactive measures, such as auto safety laws, that put the people first.
'Change' in the capital
But around 1980, things changed. Washington started closing its doors to citizen groups that worked to get these laws enforced. It's no coincidence that the closure coincided with the Democratic Party's decision to go big time for the campaign cash that the GOP was already receiving.
Dialing eagerly for the same dollars year after year precipitated a convergence of the parties. Many Democratic incumbents have turned their backs on core constituencies, especially labor and minorities who felt that they had nowhere to go but to the least-worst choice.
The result has been devastating for workers who have been losing ground, mired in debt, underemployed, underpaid and disrespected — all while the overall economy grows, and the rich get richer.
This shift of power has not gone unnoticed. A Business Week poll found that 71% of people believe corporations have too much control over their lives. With thousands of political action committees, 35,000 lobbyists and former executives in high positions in government, the corporations have become our government. In a message to Congress 70 years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called businesses' control of government "fascism."
My running mate (Matt Gonzalez, former chair of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors) and I support many changes opposed by Sens. Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama. We favor full Medicare for all and a reduction of the bloated military budget. We back a crackdown on corporate crime, fraud and abuse so often reported by the media to no avail. We seek to end huge corporate subsidies. We would give Iraq and its oil back to the Iraqi people under a six-month negotiated withdrawal, and we'd support the Israeli-Palestinian peace movements.
Sure, there are differences between the parties, but not nearly enough for a functioning democracy. By their deeds, if not their rhetoric, both parties are moving deeper into the grip of global corporatism while unraveling the wisdom of our forebears.
Not enough choice
It's well-known that in our current political system, voters for all intents and purposes have one choice — the incumbent — in most congressional elections. Gerrymandering has ensured many one-party districts. The country is a two-party elected dictatorship in presidential elections if third-party candidates are forced off the ballots and out of all the debates.
Big money is already spoiling the integrity of our system, cementing two-party domination. Perhaps as dangerous: Major parties can use obstructive state ballot-access laws to exclude third parties and independent candidates. When they do that, they deny voters their choice of candidates.
This country is fortunate that such obstacles were not around in the 19th century to keep out the small anti-slavery, women's right to vote, labor and farmer progressive parties. Aren't we fortunate that some voters did not vote "least-worst" among the Democratic, Whig and Republican parties? Instead, they put critical small-party agendas on the political map.
So, let's have more competitive elections over diverse agendas in the spirit of democracy, freedom and choice. The people and the republic will benefit.
The First Amendment applies to candidates as well as voters. Telling people not to run is like telling them not to speak, assemble and petition. Our country needs more debate inside the electoral arena. It does not need the political bigotry of candidate exclusion and denial of voter choice.
Ralph Nader is running for president as an independent. His website is votenader.org.
It's not about me. It's about our broken system.
By Ralph Nader
All Americans should have a chance to improve their country. They should not be shut out of their government by two major parties that, in varying degrees, have turned Washington into corporate-occupied territory.
With polls showing most people think our country is going in the wrong direction and that 61% of Americans believe both parties are failing, a resurgent democracy means that voters must have more choices on the presidential ballot.
My campaign for president reflects many years of accomplishments for the health, safety and well-being of the American people. That opportunity to diminish fatalities, injuries and diseases through life-saving consumer, environmental and workplace safety laws came largely in the '60s and '70s. In those decades, elected officials in Congress and in the White House were willing to listen, conduct hearings and sign into law proactive measures, such as auto safety laws, that put the people first.
'Change' in the capital
But around 1980, things changed. Washington started closing its doors to citizen groups that worked to get these laws enforced. It's no coincidence that the closure coincided with the Democratic Party's decision to go big time for the campaign cash that the GOP was already receiving.
Dialing eagerly for the same dollars year after year precipitated a convergence of the parties. Many Democratic incumbents have turned their backs on core constituencies, especially labor and minorities who felt that they had nowhere to go but to the least-worst choice.
The result has been devastating for workers who have been losing ground, mired in debt, underemployed, underpaid and disrespected — all while the overall economy grows, and the rich get richer.
This shift of power has not gone unnoticed. A Business Week poll found that 71% of people believe corporations have too much control over their lives. With thousands of political action committees, 35,000 lobbyists and former executives in high positions in government, the corporations have become our government. In a message to Congress 70 years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called businesses' control of government "fascism."
My running mate (Matt Gonzalez, former chair of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors) and I support many changes opposed by Sens. Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama. We favor full Medicare for all and a reduction of the bloated military budget. We back a crackdown on corporate crime, fraud and abuse so often reported by the media to no avail. We seek to end huge corporate subsidies. We would give Iraq and its oil back to the Iraqi people under a six-month negotiated withdrawal, and we'd support the Israeli-Palestinian peace movements.
Sure, there are differences between the parties, but not nearly enough for a functioning democracy. By their deeds, if not their rhetoric, both parties are moving deeper into the grip of global corporatism while unraveling the wisdom of our forebears.
Not enough choice
It's well-known that in our current political system, voters for all intents and purposes have one choice — the incumbent — in most congressional elections. Gerrymandering has ensured many one-party districts. The country is a two-party elected dictatorship in presidential elections if third-party candidates are forced off the ballots and out of all the debates.
Big money is already spoiling the integrity of our system, cementing two-party domination. Perhaps as dangerous: Major parties can use obstructive state ballot-access laws to exclude third parties and independent candidates. When they do that, they deny voters their choice of candidates.
This country is fortunate that such obstacles were not around in the 19th century to keep out the small anti-slavery, women's right to vote, labor and farmer progressive parties. Aren't we fortunate that some voters did not vote "least-worst" among the Democratic, Whig and Republican parties? Instead, they put critical small-party agendas on the political map.
So, let's have more competitive elections over diverse agendas in the spirit of democracy, freedom and choice. The people and the republic will benefit.
The First Amendment applies to candidates as well as voters. Telling people not to run is like telling them not to speak, assemble and petition. Our country needs more debate inside the electoral arena. It does not need the political bigotry of candidate exclusion and denial of voter choice.
Ralph Nader is running for president as an independent. His website is votenader.org.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"The country is a two-party elected dictatorship in presidential elections if third-party candidates are forced off the ballots and out of all the debates"
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Why all of a sudden right now?
It isn't like Nader doesn't know how the game works, or like he hadn't just been give a nice, fresh example of what happens when you start late in Giuliani's decision to wait until Florida to "get serious".
Nader may have some things he wants the mainstream candidates to bear in mind - but why should either the Republican or the Democratic candidate give a rat's ass about his ideas, if Nader can't deliver nominating convention delegates to them?
If he achieves even his meager 2.7% of the popular vote that he garnered in 2000, what good is it - unless he uses that percentage as a lever by trading his party's support for a particular candidate for promises of support for those things that his party desires BEFORE the election?
Which obviates any need or justification for his running for President?
How come we never hear anything about the Green Party in terms of local issues or during non-election years? Why is it always the presidency? How come Nader doesn't start w/ a grass roots movement maybe run for the local city council on the Green Party ticket.
The problem with Nader and Gonzalez is this: If they are serious about creating a viable third party they have to do more than run a campaign for office that they have no chance to win. Just coming out every four years and essentially wasting time and money on a fruitless quest isn't the way to do it. Building from the ground up is. This will accomplish nothing.
Why doesn't Nader have the courage to wage a serious campaign as a presidential candidate?
What good is 'Voting your conscience for a real change', if the candidate you are supporting doesn't wage a serious campaign to begin with??
Excellent questions. It'll be interesting to see the responses.
nice sig... i may steal it
Nader has had eight years, at least, to show that he is sincere and serious about what he says. He could have at least tried to start a movement, a party or an organization to promote the causes that he claims to represent. Where is it?
Nader is like the guy on the street corner holding up the protest sign. It is his right to do so, but it doesn"t make him deserving of Presidency of the United States.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
no offense, but that tells me nothing... bullet ppints less then 6 words lond doesnt really explain his ideas on how to address his issues...
and it is not him stating his ideas... i go to barackobama.com and it has 70 pages of his stances and ideas on the issues, dowloadable to print and read... nader had 12 bullet points that took up 1/2 page and obama has 70 pages on his website clearly stating his views
If you go to the top of each subject, you can get a number of past quotes pertaining to that issue.
Each candidate has their own page on the site.
The past dictates the future, so these old quotes are pretty interesting and shed some light on what the future may hold. It's also interesting to see who changed their views and why.
As for the Nader website, you are right, it is lacking. I'm hoping that this is because it is fairly new and in time, a more detailed plan for campaign will be presented.
Probably because he doesn't have the same resources as the other candidates do to run campaigns for almost 2 years. That answer seems obvious enough.
Because he will take away votes from the Dem made by people like me who won't vote for a weak platform like Obama's or Hillary's. They should give a rats ass because a lot of people do....but so many feel their only choice is what the Dems throw out there.
He brings more issues into the national spotlight that the other guys would prefer to continue to ignore thus guiding the Dems into addressing these concerns or lose votes
Why shouldn't he? I posted plenty of pieces and clips of explaining why he needs to run. There's simply not enough choice and the 2 major parties aren't addressing very pressing issues.
Because the media doesn't cover them. The green party and Nader do plenty of work inbetween. I think he gets a lot of attention for his causes the way he's doing it now. I mean your last question was asking what has he done in between the elections like he's just sitting around waiting to run again. That proves his point. The presidental debates get tons of attention...attention needed for the kind of stances he has taken but have been widely ignore by the two major parties.
I'll have to disagree with that. He's running because important issues are being ignored. He's even stated that he wouldn't have ran if the Dems would have tackled these problems themsleves. He's lays all this out clearly in the OP. I don't know why you're asking questions that he has clearly addressed already unless you didn't bother to read the articles I've been posting. He is serious and he does make a difference. His whole career has been about fighting an uphill battle and rooting for the underdog...that being the common man. Winning isn't everything. See my sig. Taking a stand for what you believe to be right is more important to me. I'll take that any day before I'd go against my core beliefs and settle for one of the major party candidates out there now.
It isn't all about winning and gaining power. It's about changing things and truly standing behind your ideals until these changes become real...win or lose, it's worth the fight.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5256643&postcount=80
What good is voting for someone you don't believe in?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
thank you...
It is lacking but there is no guarantee any of these promises made on any candidate's website will ever come into fruitation. I hope that in the future his site will become more detailed. I'm sure it will, he just announced running a few weeks ago. I know that he is in favor of a rapid 6 month withdrawl from Iraq, single payer national health insurance, his environmental stances are and have always been more to my taste than the typical dem. I feel very confident in Nader and the stances he has always stood for. His vision best represents the my ideals. I'll take Nader and his lacking website over Obama and his weak but detailed one anyday.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The majority of americans don't bother voting out of apathy. If they had something to gain I'm sure they would. That is a much bigger problem than having a majority of the votes. More choices always make for better candidates and it keeps them honest for fear of losing their support. I don't know how anyone could support the truely limiting two party corruption we have nowand say that other choices isn't a grand fucking idea
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And Nader is for election reform. If we go to some sort of ranking system rather than an absolute choice, it would make people feel much more comfortable about voting for a fringe candidate.
I will not be voting Nader and drawing votes away from someone he agrees with on most issues, for the benefit of a candidate with whom he disagrees with on almost everything.
That's about as simple as it gets.
Edited because i used a wrong smiley!
what issues do they agree on??? certainly not defense, obama wants to expand the military. certainly not health care or energy/environment
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Originally Posted by my2hands
nice sig... i may steal it
actually, i prefer this one of dennis'
"If you don't vote your heart, your heart never wins"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3V300QuCI2I&feature=user
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
You're welcome.
On a lot of issues, I think Obama is closer to McCain than Nader.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
exactly...
and this can be said about [size=+2]any[/size] candidate...be it Nader, Clinton, Obama, McCain, and anyone else who is running....
I guess it comes down belief...belief the person one choses to vote for does the right thing, and follows through on there word...
for me, I agree with a lot of Nader's viewpoints...I also agree with a lot of Obama's vague statements...I know some what specifics...I know some what details, details, details...I'm not one of those....I see life being full of "gray areas" and needs/wants/beliefs change in a heartbeat...
I want someone who will make good, sound decisions...
I know that we have to use a bit of faith on any candidate. I just don't trust someone who has voted to fund the war, reenact the patriot act and is funded heavily by lobbyists of the absolute worst kind.
I also feel that Obama has a past filled with saying one thing and doing another. He speaks out against the war yet votes to fund it and doesn't use the leadership skills you guys say he has to bring up any legislation proposing a better plan. Speaks out against the patriot act yet votes for it, says he's pro gay rights yet he's against gay marriage, speaks out against predatory lending yet votes in their favor and has many contributors from this sector...it just comes off as same old, same old.
This is how you show political courage and speak out about funding the war. I have faith in people like this because they have earned it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0BBKjllSlU
also, wanting to know the truth and record about someone I'm voting for has nothing to do with seeing things black and white vs gray. It has everyhting to do with wanting to see the full, complete picture vs a partial one based on media and/or his own words.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
thats exactly what i am doing, voting my heart
I never knew you loved nuclear power so much.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Here's another example of leaderships skills, political courage, standing up to the broken system and speaking out about funding the war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoxlzPGIPt4
I will not be voting for anyone who can't muster up the strength to look at how bad it has gotten and address it instead of playing along while the people continue to be the ones who are paying for it. We continue to pay because people like Obama, Clinton and McCain have done nothing but follow suit in order to keep and gain more power. There's no chance in hell I'll believe that we had no choice but to keep this war going for this long, while it continuously drains our country needlessly and endangers our future more and more every single day.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
read the quote again, slowly
"If you don't vote your heart, your heart never wins"
that does not equal
vote for what MY heart says
vote for who i say
it means vote for who YOU want to vote for, who YOU believe in, not who others tell you
and that was for iowa only, not in general
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/kucinich_obama_is_my_second_ch.html
Kucinich: Obama is my second choice (in Iowa)
Kucinich said Tuesday that he would like his supporters to back Obama in places where they are not in large enough numbers to be viable. (Iowa Democratic Party rules require that a candidate receive support from 15 percent of caucus participants -- sometimes more -- to be deemed viable.)
“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice," Kucinich said in a statement. "But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way