Transcript:

There is only one chance to take back our government peacefully; and do it THIS YEAR. And that is if ALL the reform candidates form a coalition third party together, one with only one platform plank: “We must first make the Nation safe to argue in, before continuing the argument!”

This bold and unprecedented move will insure that there is no partisan bickering or infighting. The “new” part insures that there will no preconceived baggage brought along. Such a movement will attract all the discontented: Progressives, Greens, Indi’s, Libertarians, and honest Conservatives. Right out of the gate, it could count on as much as 25% of the population’s support; and “steal” votes equally from both mainstream parties.

The movement leaders (Paul, Kucinich, Nader, McKinney, Gravel, and others) can draw straws or some other equally random method on live TV and webcam to choose the actual candidate; because that person is only the name on the ballot. The movement will be the real “candidate”, and all will campaign equally hard. And all will move into positions of power once successful. Such a movement will attract many elected officials and distinguished statesmen as well, ‘”defectors” in the thousands from the failed mainstream parties, people who have long yearned for this chance for true reform. 

The main message of this new reform coalition will be the cleansing of our government and media from corruption and unseen control, and the protection of our Constitutional Rights and Liberties. It is a powerful motivation; and with the support of the above leaders it could very well succeed (..The ONLY way in which a third party could).

There are ways to put mainstream media onto the defensive, force them to cover the new movement in a more “honest” manner… And ways to insure our votes are counted accurately. All it will take are millions of highly motivated people at the grass roots level with the same patriotic agenda working together with this goal. These issues are so powerful that they are self-motivating; and will hold the coalition together despite the varied political or social differences. Because we know that it is time that the Roman Circus, the Red vs. Blue chariot races held for our distraction and enjoyment are utterly rejected and called for what they really are… And real reform instituted. Never before in our history has there been a better time for doing this; and never before has the need been so great.

Europe has coalition governments; why must we be forced into picking one of two equally bad and corrupt choices? We must find a way to break this grip of corruption that has overcome the government, and a new Coalition Reform Third Party is the way!

CY:  WBAI is part of the Pacific Network which was founded by pacifists in the 1950s in Berkeley, CA.  Pacifica initially broadcast over KPFA and then expanded.  It has always been listener funded.  Democracy Now began as a Pacifica program but has spun off, as it experienced phenomenal growth.  It is still broadcast over all Pacific affiliates but is also broadcast on NPR, on DirectTV, Free Speech TV, Link, Direct TV and on more than 500 public access stations.  It too is listener funded.  (I often listen to Democracy Now over the L.A. based affiliate, KPFK, though my preference is to access it at Democracy Now.org, where you can link into archives for any program.  It is a great research tool.)

PBS, as it was originally formulated during the Johnson administration, was intended to present non-commercial programming.  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created, in theory, as a firewall between PBS and political/commercial interests.  The Bush administration has been working tirelessly from within to dismantle that fire wall and inject political controls over the content of PBS broadcasting, yet it remains a source where one can find the fabulously informative content of a Bill Moyers program.

Right you are, CY.  It is also the reason why Democracy Now and Pacific Radio are exclusively listener funded.  It is also the basic theory behind PBS--the need to have a media unfettered by corporate control so as to fulfill the critical role of a free press as a fourth estate.

As Justice Hugo Black observed in New York Times vs. U.S. (1971)

“In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy.  The press was to have served the governed, not the governors.  The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government.  The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.  Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.  And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die....”

One need look no further than the sorry performance of the corporate media in the run-up to the war in Iraq to see how the corporate media has betrayed the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment.  A Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting Study done during the weeks surrounding Collin Powell’s key UN address revealed that of 293 on-air experts, only 4 were associated with the anti-war movement--this at a time when 61% of Americans favored more negotiations.  The corporate media (including NBC, whose parent company GE is a major weapons manufacturer) led a propaganda blitz, complete with words like “Target Iraq” and “Operation Iraqi Freedom” flashing across their screens.

The New York Times is quick to chastise the Bush regime these days, but other than a semi-mea culpa, it has yet to step forward and accept responsibility for the series of uncritical articles authored by Judith Miller in advance of the war that merely parroted the administration’s propaganda claims about WMD and supposed links to al-Qaeda.

Jaki, Don’t count on media pundits to ever do the right thing.  Dig for the source of political corruption and you will find the greed of the conglomerated corporate media at its core.  Economics drives the refusal to link candidates to issues that truly matter, creating what Noam Chomsky refers to as a “democracy deficit.”

What little “coverage” there is will be found in horse-race questions--who will be the likely winner--or triviality--the price of a candidate’s haircut.  Coverage is generally limited those candidates who have trolled for sufficient corporate dollars to feed the media noise machine via the deceptive but inordinately expensive 30 second spot ads. 

Where elections in the UK and Europe occur over a span of weeks, the need to garner monies necessary to feed the media noise machine has caused the American political system to devolve into a near-permanent electoral cycle as witnessed by the fact that candidates were forced to declare for 2008 even as the votes were still being counted for 2006.

The corporate media actively seeks to marginalize Mr. Kucinich not only because of his position on impeachment but because Mr. Kucinich gives voice to the real interests of the vast majority of Americans--the middle and working classes.  Kucinich would not only restore the Fairness Doctrine and roll back media consolidation (which would cost the media conglomerates billions of dollars) but he would repeal NAFTA & the WTO--devices by which the multi-nationals have carried out their corporate global project in which America’s manufacturing base has been outsourced in an endless search for the $2/day laborer as what remains of American labor has been Wal-Martized.

Make no mistake.  The American corporate media is part and parcel of the corporate global project.  It stands on the opposite side of the global class from the American middle and working classes and their champion, Dennis Kucinich.  If we want others to learn about Mr. Kucinich stands, it is up to each and every one of us to direct everyone we know to the appropriate sources of information, like those I linked to earlier.

Well said, CY, and I think I would add the prospects for Dennis Kucinich to capture the nomination are not as slim as the corporate media would like us to believe.  Democrats for America just completed their internet pulse poll for California.  The top three were Dennis Kucinich, 41%, Edwards, 24% and Obama at 16%. 

As I mentioned previously, a blind poll conducted in August in which 70,000 Democratic voters selected the candidates on the basis of their positions on issues but to which they names were withheld produced a startling result.  Kucinich received a whopping 58%.  The rest of the field was at or near single digits.

The real challenge, given the concerted effort by the corporate media to marginalize his candidacy, is to educate people to the fact that if siding with the interests of the vast majority of the electorate--the middle and working classes--is mainstream, Kucinich is the only candidate who is mainstream.

Mr. Kucinich was interviewed this morning by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez.  Here’s some interesting excerpts:

“Juan Gonzales:  What do you say to those who argue that even they may agree with you...the impeachment process itself would drag out...that...people should just move forward towards the next election...?

“Kucinich:....The administration will be in office for at least fourteen more months.  They can cause a lot of damage in that time.  They’re planning to attack Iran.  When you think about the defense authorization budget including a provision that would retrofit Stealth B-2 bombers so they can carry 30,000 lb. bombs which would then be dropped on nuclear research labs, creating a humanitarian and ecological disaster, ‘What are we waiting for?’ is the question, not ‘Why don’t we wait for the election?’

“Amy Goodman:  The other argument the leadership has used is...they’re concerned about losing in a landslide vote against them....

“Kucinich:  Since when does it become unfashionable to stand up for the Constitution, to stand up for our nation’s laws, to stand up for internaltional law...?  Since when does it become inconvenient to take a stand that would help secure our democracy once again?  I mean,...it’s all at risk right now, and it’s time that the Democratic leadership exerted an effective influence.  As a coequal branch of government, Congress cannot stand by and let this adminstration continue to undermine our Constitution.  That’s why I introduced those articles of impeachment.”

I would encourage Truthdiggers to link to the full interview.

http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl?sid=07/11/09/1455244

Finally, what Scheer and several of the posters fail to realize is that while, tactically third party candidates can split the progressive vote, so long as progressives do not understand that this idea of continuing to select candidates on the basis of whom the corporate media claims are “electable” rather than on the basis of where a candidate stands on issues that truly matter is the true source of our present malaise.

Right now, there is no excuse about allegedly throwing away one’s vote.  We are approaching the primaries.  There is no need for a Hobson’s choice of the lesser of two evils at this stage.  If you can’t vote for the candidate who represents your interest now, when can you?  It is not about “all or nothing” as several posters have asserted but instead entails the fact that so long as we continue to blindly vote for corporatists who have stolen control of the Democratic Party--which is supposed to be the party of the common man, global corporations will get the mine while the rest of us get the shaft.

The voters in New Hampshire have a really unique opportunity to send a message that will resonate not only throughout the halls of Congress but in the board rooms of the multinational corporations and media conglomerates.  Vote Kucinich!

This “debate” reflects what happens when two exceptionally intelligent individuals talk past each other rather than to one another. 

Both Mr. Scheer and Mr. Nader had very different issues they wanted to address.  Mr. Nader, as he has always done, zeroed in on how the role of the corporation has corrupted the two-party system, protecting the few haves and have-mores at the expense of the public domain.  He correctly identifies the failure of the Democratic party to act as a true opposition party--putting the brakes on the right-wing onslaught against the very survival of constitutional democracy.  Nader cites, as poignant examples, the failure of even a single Democrat to vote against confirmation of Antonin Scalia and the failure to block the Clarence Thomas nomination.  He could have added the failure to fillibuster the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.  All four are members of the Robert Bork-founded, Richard Mellon Scaife-funded “Federalist Society.” All four subscribe to the radically subversive “Unitary Executive” theory, which would extend unchecked, dictatorial power to the president.  (Not mentioned was the failure to block the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the failure to block funding for the war).

Mr. Scheer came to this debate with a single-minded agenda of taking on Mr. Nader as a supposed “spoiler” responsible for the hard-right’s capture of the White House in 2000--a point which Mr. Nader negates by pointing out how the roll-over Democrats failed to challenge the illegal voter suppression efforts by Katherine Harris (and Choicepoint) before, during and after that election.  Because of that single-minded purpose, Mr. Scheer failed to directly and constructively respond to Mr. Nader’s invitation that he, Scheer, suggest how we could improve the Democratic Party.

My difference with Mr. Nader is not on substance but on tactics.  Nader calls to mind a rather profound remark a college history professor made in my freshman class in 1969, shortly after I returned from Vietnam.  He said that if the American right can be criticized for its complete lack of empathy toward the economic plight of the working class, the American left can always be criticized for its inability to count. 

Nader recognizes the many roadblocks--legal and quasi-legal--to third party candidacies, yet he doesn’t seem to recognize that his message would have resonated, his prospects for accomplishing meaningful change if he had led an effort for progressives to recapture control of a Democratic party whose agenda had been purloined by the corporatists before seeking the presidency.  A Nader candidacy during the primaries--at a time when we are not faced with the Hobson’s choice of the lesser of two evils--would have faced a far greater chance of success than either of his third party efforts.

Censorship is definitely practiced here at Truthdig. My earlier comments were never posted and I was critical of Mr. Scheer because I don’t think he at all “won” his debate with Mr. Nader. Nader’s excellent analysis of our tweedle dee and tweedle dumb political system proved accurate and Mr. Scheer wasn’t even able to counter it other than with a trifle few examples or exceptions of democratic politicans who tend to be more “liberal.” Mr. Nader is as astute and sharp as ever and it’s a damn shame he never could have been elected president. But we live in a system where h/she who raises the most money literally purchases their way into the highest office of the land. America, the best democracy money can buy....

Scheer, your name is on this, do you have the guts or ethics, to respond?  What are you and “your” “Truthdig” doing here?  Eh?  Hello?  Comment?  What is this all about?  Many questions....no answers!

This is just more Truthdig block, censure, and confuse.  This crap (not the article itself) is a month old and dissappeared and regurgitated for commercial consumption.  Just what the hell is Truthdig doing?  This is crap!!!!!  The original posts have been deleted....what the hell is going on?

#111894 by HC on 11/06 at 5:37 am
(Unregistered commenter)

What happened to the comments when this video was first put up on the site about three weeks ago, for only a day or two, and then mysteriously was taken down, only to reappear now?

HC, you are the only other one to notice...recycled it must be...filler gone bad.  Say what!!!!!

Taking to the streets by the millions sounds like a good idea. We may learn to do that if pushed by circumstances. But at some point, unless we are all turned into soylent green, we will still need a way to vote. Promote instant runoff voting first, take to the streets later. Get those millions of people to sign the national initiative. That should be easier than getting off their asses and out into the streets. We’ll see.

• The public faces of gov’t are not the true power brokers in the US.  Most are not on the ‘list of wealthiest people’ either.  Bill Gates has more influence on our national policy than you or I, but not significantly more.  Bush, Cheney, and Rummy may have been an “Axis of Evil” but neither they and the think tank kids like Rove and Libby are just tools of the old money families where money is in private businesses and trust with unclear ownership and control.
The elite most likely look at the monkeys in the White House as dumb kids just having a little fun. 
If they start WWIII, so what?  The small group of families that wield true power are so international and own enough of all of the channels of wealth, that any calamity only funnels more wealth upward.  They can’t lose.  And I suspect they get a secret pleasure in a time such as this when we are shown we are sheep with no real control of our national policy or direction.
If you think the Democrats are any different you are sadly mistaken.  They work for the same people and that ain’t you or me.
The American economy is vaporware.  We produce very little, while even food production, one of our most prolific resources, is now only part of a global supply chain that can be turned off overnight if we misbehave.  They don’t need us anymore, hence the open borders, free trade, offshoring and H-1B workers widen the gap and keep us invested in the survival of conspicuous consumerism as our national religion.
The only real threat to that elite in recent years has been Iraq engaging in oil trade in Euros vs the Dollar, and Iran threatening to do so. The Federal Reserve issues money on an imaginary value that actually is tied to the world’s largest commodity market, Oil.  If the dollar becomes unhinged from the oil market, any intrinsic value is lost, and the emperor’s new close aren’t there anymore.
That is why the only way Iran can avoid being the ‘cause of WWIII’ is to rejoin the Dollar base oil bourse.  Saddam refused and we saw his fake execution.  The Iranian people probably won’t be so lucky. Their military and infrastructure hasn’t been bombed for 12 years and they actually have an army.  They will probably get nuked.

And Hillary might delay the attack, but if Iran proceeds with its own Euro based oil bourse, she’ll push the button just as surely as Momma’s Little Cocaine Cowboy.

The difference between us and them is they know who they answer too.

We will not change the direction of this nation with a vote. The vote has had its teeth pulled.  Millions of Americans in the streets are the only chance, and most of us are to comfortable to make the effort, so we pretend its in our best interest.

A questioner raised an important misconception:

“But the problem being, of course, is the Electoral College. Which makes instant run-off elections impossible unless the Electoral College is eliminated.”

Not true.  The states can choose their Electors any way they want.  IRV is a way of carrying out and counting an election; once the electors are chosen, they look just the same to the Electoral College.

In fact, one advantage of IRV is that it happens entirely on Nov.6, required by federal law to be Election Day.  A traditional runoff is not compatible, as it may well elect somebody in the 1st round, months or weeks before.

Voting is the civic responsibility of all freedom loving Americans. But when the choice is having your head chopped off or being burned at the stake, it’s understandably difficult to talk oneself into voting these days.

Yes indeed. Instant runoff voting (IRV) is something we should all be very
aware of and work actively to promote on the local and national levels. If we are ever to see a successful third-party, instant runoff voting on a national level will be absolutely essential.

http://www.instantrunoff.com/

The National Initiative Process is another method of making voting a worthwhile effort.

http://ni4d.us/

Both Democrats and Republicans are comfortably entrenched. Neither party wants any changes that would threaten their incestuous self-serving orgy of greed. For those who actually believe there’s a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, watch how cooperatively they work together to keep their stranglehold on the electoral process. The Democratic and Republican parties resemble two warlords cooperating in the subjugation of the peasantry than they do competing political parties.

In the Democratic debates Mike Gravel was ruthlessly maligned from the very beginning. Now Mike Gravel is probably going to be excluded from all future debates. Dennis Kucinich will be next to bite the dust. Yes the military- industry news media had a lot to do with Mike Gravel’s exclusion and with portraying Kucinich as a deranged UFO chaser but the Democratic Party is undoubtedly the real culprit in the exclusion of these would-be boat rockers.

heartandmind:Thank you. I used to think, please make a profit, just don’t be a pig - as you point out very well, even that temperance is unsustainable.

The compression to exceed the previous quarters earnings w/yet another increase in profit is terribly flawed.

Scheer:

“We don’t have a movement. There’s no Green movement. There’s not third-party movement.”

That I take personally, because I’m deeply involved in it.  So, yes, there certainly is a very active Green Party, as you will see next year.  And he’s wrong on the details, too:  Nader’s 2000 run greatly increased Green Party registrations - it built up the party.  When we essentially sat out the ‘04 election (yes, we did: Kerry has no excuse), the party shrank.  We, too, need to be seen to have the courage of our convictions; and Presidential campaigns are indispensable organizing tools.  Wrong twice, Mr. Scheer.  Not good journalism.

I never thought I’d call Robert Scheer clueless, but he’s fundamentally confused.  He doesn’t grasp the difference between CRITICISM and POLITICS. 

Yes, you can criticize all you want, and the politicians couldn’t care less.  All they care about are your votes and your money.  As long as you give them those, they can do as they please.  Even better, when the corporations give them the money and you give them your votes anyway.

To make them care, you have to vote against them.  And you have to vote for what you really want, so that they know WHY you’re voting against them.  That, they care about.  That’s what the Greens are for, and what Nader was for.  (It isn’t clear whether he will run again.  But someone will - all out.)

ctrenta agrees with Scheer that “the only battle worth fighting for is the one Scheer is advocating; taking back the Democratic Party. “ He isn’t paying attention.  Progressives have been fighting that battle for years now.  They even got back Dem control of Congress.  So now we know:  what you see is what you get.  They flatly refuse to do anything effective to end the war or reverse Bush’s damage.  The whole “spineless” thing is silly:  they’re willing to stand up to their constituents; why not a deeply unpopular, lame duck President?  And they do know how their own institution works; there is no need to tell them.  If they don’t do it, it’s because they don’t actually want to.  They want to pretend, and hope we don’t notice.

As a result, they poll about as high as Darth Cheney, and below Bush himself.  So it’s the Year of the Third Parties:  even the fundies are threatening to start their own (we can hope).  The major parties have discredited themselves, and next year is going to be wild. 

Actually, I think it’s going to be scary but a lot of fun.  No one knows what will happen - but I think the next President will have a shockingly small plurality.  In a 5-way race, you can win with 21%, and we may see something like that. 

Scheer needs to get his head out of the sand.  He’s gotten old and conservative.  And I never thought I’d call him clueless…

Our personal freedoms are at stake in the 2008 election. The security of this nation is at stake NOW , but is not addressed as urgent by either party - because of the “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” strategy of our Supreme Emperor, King George Bush and his NAZI regime .
Has this pack of rats gotten anything right in two terms . They have done nothing good or positive for anyone , save for themselves and their corporate bosses . We have had almost seven years of Smoke and Mirrors policies . This administration has put us in Iraq , not for peace , not for democracy , and certainly not to leave . The policy is for the Middle East to implode - a policy that may take five or ten more years , hundreds of thousands more of Iraqi and American lives , Billions of dollars needed at home - yet spent over there . Most every government agency has been gutted of quality leaders and employees , and those good people replaced by Bush cronies who are either corrupt or incompetent . My point is that we as citizens have watched this regime fail in every way possible . We have been served propaganda ,lies , and abuse of Executive Priveledge , instead of transparency , truth and service in the public interest . We have seen scandle upon scandle , with each scandle diverting our atttention from previous ones . Do you actually believe there is no strategy in all of this ?
If we are witness to all of this via the media , what do the Democrats in office see and hear in Washington . Go ahead - believe that there is a difference between the two parties - but with the exception of a few good people on both sides of the aisle - the difference is in Party name only . We will ultimately have two Presidential candidates to vote for , but the only differences between them will be the campaign rhetoric and mud slinging leading up to the election .
We need more than a third party candidate . We need the right to call for early elections if the public’s lack of confidence in the Chief Executive warrants a change in leadership . We need to throw every lobbyist out of Washington , no matter who they represent . We the voters are the only lobbyists needed . Our elected representatives in the Congress and Senate should be doing our bidding - not the biddding of multibillion dollar corporations . We really should eliminate the office of President and replace it with a diverse Executive board that represents a multitude of concerns in stead of Party Dogma .
This “debate “ with Ralph Nader was more about Robert Sheer attempting to sideswipe Mr. Nader with Sheer Smear . Ralph Nader had the constitutional right to run for the Office of President of The United States of America . Every effort to deny him that right was executed by both parties . The effort to deny him that right was just the beginning of a process to gradually erode the constitutional rights of all Americans . We are living in a neocracy . We are watching our country and the world at large erode and sink . We need to make room for diverse voices in our government before it is too late . May God Bless Mr. Ralph Nader and have mercy on us all for our choice to be blind and ignorant . Mr. Scheer should go back to the nursing home and stick to the cozy interviews with his roommate , Gore (The Icon) Vidal .