  |
 |
| |
|
|
|  Robert Scheer Debates Ralph NaderPosted on Nov 5, 2007
(Page 3) Nader: OK. Let’s hold the Democratic Party up to an opposition role. What could they have stopped that they didn’t stop. They could have stopped the war. They could have stopped the tax cuts for the rich. They could have stopped any number of things, whether by filibuster, by raising the standard high and mobilizing public opinion when the polls were on their side on so many of these things, like tax cuts for the rich. He got through three of them. While he is building a huge deficit, he got through three of them. That’s never happened in the middle of hostilities in the American history. They always raised taxes, excess profit taxes, to pay for the war. The Democrats controlled the Senate when the first big tax cut came through in 2002. Where were they? They just didn’t have the guts to stop it. Let’s take the Supreme Court, Bob. I was up there lobbying against Bork, and it was a success; it was a great coalition. I was up there lobbying against [Justice Antonin] Scalia. And I would ask Al Gore, and I would ask Ted Kennedy, and Paul Sarbanes, all these great senators: “You’re going to vote for Scalia?” “Well, he’s going to win anyway.” But I said, “You know, I can’t find a senator, not one senator, to vote against Scalia.” And he wasn’t hiding his candle under a barrel during the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Scalia was confirmed 98 to nothing. So then, in comes Thomas. And George Mitchell, the Democratic majority leader, sitting in his office, and we’re going in one senator’s office after another ... and it was really close. And of course Bush called Thomas the most qualified nominee that he could find and he was the heir to the seat of Thurgood Marshall. And so, we would go in one senator after another, say “Is Mitchell really twisting arms here? Is he using his power?” “No. he’s letting us decide. He’s not leading the way against Thomas.” And the vote was 52-48. Eleven Democratic senators crossed the aisle and voted for Thomas. So when we evaluate the Democrats in their oppositional role, what have they stopped? Now, the Democrats see nothing wrong with the anti-civil libertarian of knocking the third party, or independent candidates, off the ballot in the most vicious ways. You know, when you run for office, you’re running for free speech, petition, and assembly. And that doesn’t seem to bother a lot of liberal Democrats. They liked Buchanan running, didn’t they? But they didn’t want our voters to have a chance to vote for the candidates of their choice. Not by arguing with us, or having a better platform, no. But by maneuvering these state laws that the Republicans and Democrats have enacted, to get us off the ballot. In more than a few states. I don’t consider that a civil liberties position. That’s one of the last remaining areas of political bigotry that don’t raise the hackles of the ACLU. When you deny the right of candidates to be on the ballot by harassment and phony litigation and all these partisan state ballot access laws, you are denying millions of voters their choice. And so, let’s not put the Democrats on too high a pedestal. Let us agree that there’s a least worst operating here, there’s a lesser than two evils. The point is, at what point do we say that there is a breaking point. What is your breaking point, if you support the Democrats, Bob, what is your breaking point? Can you give me a hypothetical of behavior by the Democratic Party, or series of behaviors, where you’ll break with them and support an alternative candidate? Or an alternative party, regardless of their status in the polls because you believe in what they’re advancing? What is your breaking point? Scheer: Well, I would say the breaking point right now would be a candidate [for president] who did not oppose the Iraq war. ... I would not vote for such a candidate. I would not support such a candidate. The breaking point for me, because I do consider the Iraq war and all it represents to be absolutely decisive, that if we have a candidate for the Democratic Party who does not break with that war, who does not promise to end it, and so forth. I would not vote for such a candidate, would not support such a candidate. That would be a breaking point, yes. I could list four or five other issues, if you’d like, but I think torture would be another one. You could go down the line. But I think that there is a different issue here and we should address it. You’re basically suggesting a kind of personal politics in a way. You’re saying that you are the litmus test. Because you’re not really talking, telling us how to build this third-party movement. If there was a viable, in any way, third-party movement now, that was an alternative. Then we could have that discussion. If there was a serious alternative that was emerging, that had come out of your campaign, that we could rally around, then one could say, “OK, that’s a way to go.” But it doesn’t exist. All that we have left after your two campaigns is Ralph Nader. Nader: No, not at all. Scheer: Yes. That’s all we have. Nader: No, not at all. Scheer: We don’t have a movement. There’s no Green movement. There’s not third-party movement. You didn’t build anything; you didn’t leave any legacy electorally. Electorally, you left it in all sorts of ways. But you have not provided a model of political action. You have not. Nader: Bob, I’m really amazed that you are attacking me for not being omnipotent. Scheer: No, I’m attacking you for not being a political organizer. Say in the tradition of Debbs, who would at least build a party, build the party; we had third-party candidates that haven’t been all that successful, but that have built. And I’m not singling you out. I didn’t want you to run. So I don’t hold you responsible. I don’t think we’re going to have a third party. But I’m just saying to discuss it as if it exists when It doesn’t exist, and now you’re even considering a third campaign. What could possibly come out of such a campaign? Nader: You see you’re contradicting yourself. You say, on one hand the system is rigged against third parties. And then you said why aren’t you building a third party? You’re right. The system is rigged against the third party. It keeps third-party candidates even if the polls want them on national presidential debates off the presidential debates because the debate commission is a private corporation created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic Party. They don’t want any competition. So the system is rigged in the ballot access; it’s rigged in a thousand ways. It’s rigged because most Americans are prisoners of a 220-year-old Electoral College, two-party, winner-take-all, system. And so they want to be for winners. So you can’t start from the small base and try to grow. Because even people who agree with you, and if you poll-tested our platform in 2000 and 2004, a very many of them had majority poll support. They want to be with the winner. People can say “I really like what you’re doing, and I’d like to vote for you, but I want to support a winner.” You get this in 40 states that were either slam-dunk Republican or Democrat. I’d be in Texas and people would say, “ I really like what you’re doing, but I don’t want Mr. Bush to win. And so I have to vote for John Kerry.” In Texas, you have to vote for John Kerry? Kerry never even campaigned in Texas. There were 40 states where people could have voted their conscience but the system is a prison. It is an imprisoning system. It makes people feel like there’s no chance for the little guy. There’s no chance for the underdog. And the two parties take advantage of that. And they collude in ways that, if they were in the marketplace, they’d be in trouble, as I said earlier, with the antitrust laws. So, what we have done in these campaigns is we’ve given people an opportunity to vote for what they believe in. We have gotten a lot of young people trained in political activity. You’ll hear from them as they go into politics. And take civic and political leadership positions. We kept the progressive agenda alive. I mean, how many four years do you go through before you have a whole new generation who can’t even argue for the estate tax, or progressive taxation, or Social security if you don’t keep that flame alive? And then we’re condemned because all good liberals and progressive like Robert Scheer say, well, “You’re just pie-in-the-sky stuff.” And you’re not building a movement. Let me tell you something, Mr. Scheer. Scheer: Yeah. Nader: Let me tell you something. Scheer: Yeah. Nader: When I see you on hustings ... when I see you on the hustings trying to build a movement. Or even in the hustings trying to cover a fledgling movement, which I did not see you on. Huh? Then, I will say that you’re putting your feet and your brain where your words are. Scheer: OK, Ralph, I don’t want to get too personal, but, as you know, from a previous conversation, I did cover your speech at Santa Monica College and others, and I was appalled that you did not raise the question of welfare reform. And I felt that you were not raising issues of foreign policy. We have our own disagreements. But that’s not the point; I don’t want to make it so personal. I want to talk about— there are other heroes other than you in this society that I can get excited about. Now let me just take my own voting pattern. I’ve gotten to vote for Sheila Kuehl, for instance, our state senator, and she’s very aggressive on single-payer health plans. And maybe even giving Schwarzenegger a bit over, he’s at least accepted the idea that undocumented citizens and children have the right to health care, which is an improvement. The progressive Legislature that we do have in California, progressive leadership, has actually even brought this Republican governor ... they didn’t do it alone, the nurses, the firefighters, a lot of constituent groups put pressure on him. He went down in the polls because there was massive education; there was a distinction between the Republicans and the Democrats. I would say that the Democrats in California have represented a very solid progressive force. I get nowadays—you get to vote for a Henry Waxman. I mean, I haven’t voted for a stinker of a candidate in quite a long time, as a matter of fact. I even got to vote for Tom Hayden to be my state senator at one point. And so I think that there are plenty of people out there that have pursued the electoral process as Democrats, there are a few Republicans, who stand for something. OK. And some of them are not partisan like [Salt Lake City Mayor] Rocky Anderson, OK. And Tony Villaraigosa, our mayor in Los Angeles. There are role models out there. Ted Kennedy is a role model. OK. He has screwed up here or there. But I think Ted Kennedy has been an incredible senator. I’m enormously proud of him. He’s fought the fight right down the line. And I can’t accept the idea that there aren’t really good people out there that we can work with, that we can get behind, that we can recruit other good candidates and people to run, that young people should get involved. I know that my son, for example, after he worked in your campaign, which I think was a good experience, he did it over my objection, but he’s his own man. He went and worked for Kerry last time. I think he’s rather proud of that. I think he feels that we would have been better off if Kerry had won. And he went, in fact, to Nevada to campaign for him there, because he wasn’t needed in California. I just want to wonder what is the message we are sending, OK. If the message is we need to be critical, independent thinkers in the model of a Ralph Nader, I began what I said, I think you are one of the great human beings in the last hundred years, I really believe that. And a incredibly, incredibly useful critic, I don’t want Ralph Nader to stop being Ralph Nader. If there are other Ralph Naders, I want him to do that. And so forth. But what we are talking about is how are you effective politically as a candidate, that’s the issue here. And what I’m saying is that you did not provide a good model, and do not now provide a good model, of being an electoral candidate. That’s what we’re talking about, all right? And in that respect, I would like to see people… OK, don’t like the candidates out there, work for others, or support ... you know, if you think Kucinich is the only good one out there, then get behind him, for God’s sake. He’s running, you know. Support him. There are people out there. If you think Gore should run? Get him to run. If you think Hillary is selling out; challenge her. Challenge her by picketing her. Challenge her by denouncing her. Writing e-mails, whatever. The fact is we have a process underway, and I don’t want this to be yet another Nation discussion that marginalizes us and puts us outside what is really happening out there. We are in the midst of an election; we are in the midst of a battle with the Bush administration. I want us to win; I would like to see us with as strong candidates as possible. I would like to make our representatives in the Congress live up to the mandate of the last election. I would like them to do more—yes, OK. Put impeachment on the table. Let’s pressure them to do that, I’m not saying give up the fight. But goddamit, there’s a fight to be waged.
1
2
3
4
5
NEXT PAGE >>>
SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
|
Bailout Ballpark
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Notorious Forever, February 28 at 12:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ralph Nader / Dennis Kucinich - 2008...the best ticket EVER!!!
Report thisBy jibbguy, February 28 at 8:37 am #
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.
Report thisEurope 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!
By Mike de Martino, February 27 at 3:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Gore/Nader 2008. Now that’s a ticket I can vote for.
Report thisBy kevin99999, February 26 at 11:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I am not looking for winner or loser in this excellent debate. The liberal wing is not monolithic and should not be monolithic. However, the debate should be civil and based on issues devoid of personal attacks. When it comes to personal attacks, the liberal media is just as bad as the right wing media. Just look at the coverage Clinton has gotten from the so called liberal blogs, which has ranged from daily drum beat of manufactured headlines, not unlike right wing swift-boaters, to personal attacks. HuffPost has been the most devious and most juvenile in its attacks.
Report thisBy cann4ing, November 12, 2007 at 10:30 am #
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.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, November 12, 2007 at 5:43 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
112955 by Ernest Canning on 11/11 at 4:08 pm
“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.”
I knew about W.B.A.I. (Pacificia) going in the direction of “listener funded.” But I know nothing about Democracy now. PBS has no claim on “listener funded” status as long as they are accepting money from ... and running ads for… Archer Daniels Midland, ExxonMobil, BP, and Hewlett Packard.
Report thisBy Jaki, November 11, 2007 at 10:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Back to the most critical issue of the debate between Nader & Scheer…
Tonight I watched James Gandolfini’s HBO film, “Alive Day Memories: From Iraq,” which moved me to tears. Gandolfini interviews wounded human beings--men and women (and their families) who have returned alive, but seriously and permanently damaged by this illegal, barbaric war. So far over 28,000 Americans have been wounded --traumatic brain injuries, PTSD, loss of limbs, sight, hearing, you name it. It was painful to watch...and it was also inspiring to witness their courage.
Gandolfini shows us graphically what happened to these people--the actual incidents in which they were blown up and wounded. We meet their families, loved ones, see the struggles they must go through on a daily basis to stay alive, function, and not go mad. Some of the footage was given to the filmmakers by “insurgents.” Some of us define this word to mean citizens of Iraq fighting against occupation.
In addition to the 28,000+ wounded, 4,000 have died. Over one million Iraqis have been killed, most of whom were women and children. And then, of course, there is the cost and what that money could better have been spent on.
We MUST NOT elect a new President who intends to keep us in Iraq...at all.
If the Democrats run Hillary Clinton, who, although she says she now opposes the war, has made no commitment to take our troops out immediately after being elected.
If the Democrats run Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader SHOULD run.
As an anti-war activist since 1964, I say unequivocally that we should also honor and help those who have been maimed by this experience. We all know who goes to war and it ain’t the kids of the rich and powerful.
Report thisBy cann4ing, November 11, 2007 at 4:08 pm #
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.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, November 11, 2007 at 5:38 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
112806 by Ernest Canning on 11/10 at 2:28 pm
“Jaki, Dont 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.”
Subscribers must pay the cost of their newspaper, for if that cost is born by advertisers, those same advertisers will dictate what news subscribers read.
This is not a direct quote but sums up the sentiments of Thomas Paine, as I read him.
Report thisBy cann4ing, November 10, 2007 at 2:28 pm #
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.
Report thisBy Jaki, November 10, 2007 at 10:54 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Well said, Ernest! Thank you for recapping portions of that important message this week from Dennis Kucinich on Democracy Now! And I believe you are right. He does reflect what most of the country is feeling about this runaway train that is tromping on everything we hold dear (and our futures).
Ralph Nader said he would only consider running as a 3rd Party candidate if the Dems ran Hillary. In that case, I would support him.
If, however, the Democrats do what they have been mandated by The People to do and get some spine to stand up against the Forces of Evil*, and by some transformative miracle or stroke of intelligence would run Kucinich, I think we might have a chance for real change (if he doesn’t get assassinated, of course).
(*See Bill Moyers’ Journal (11/9/07) Cahill interview for a definition of evil that reflects the psychosis of those involved in the current takeover of our country-- cruel, heartless, deceitful, crass, unbelievably greedy, utterly lacking in any form of compassion, and, therefore, EVIL.)
Let’s hope the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire will be the inspiring trendsetters and put Kucinich on top for the Democratic nomination. And other states will follow suit.
And let’s hope the media pundits will grow up and stop focusing on trivialities such as his height, his wife’s looks, and whether or not he admits to seeing something in the sky that he could not identify. So did Eisenhower and Reagan, and so have millions of others. Cahill (on Moyers) also showed footage of Nobel Peace Prize recipient Bishop TuTu, forcefully and directly confronting huge bullies, yelling in their faces, standing tall at 5 feet 4 inches.
We The People need to call the media on this superficial, irrelevant crap when they do it.
And, we may need to take to the streets at the Democratic Convention, and call for a Kucinich mandate.
Whatever it takes. We are poised on the cusp of the beginnings of possible radical change (in the true sense of that word--getting to the root of the problem). We have to seize the day or we are probably doomed. We may never have another opportunity once Marshall Law is declared and The System locks us down...which is already underway… as we face nuclear annihilation (so they can have their so-called “rapture”?) Like hell. It is all about imperial power and greed.
I sure hope there are enough of us who will get out of our so-called “comfort” and TAKE A STAND!
Meanwhile, we have to keep on communicating with each other...educating...being educated...yelling in the faces of the bullies when necessary (like Code Pink), having the courage to stand up to the War Criminals who are doing it in our names.
Impeachment NOW! Our Constitution demands it. Now we have to. Write your legislators. Call them.
Bombard them with phone calls, emails and letters. Take the time. The consequences of nonaction are extreme.
We all need to get that...and get it NOW.
As with the planet’s survival, the clock is ticking.
Report thisAnd it is very close to midnight.
By cann4ing, November 9, 2007 at 4:01 pm #
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!
Report thisBy Jaki, November 9, 2007 at 2:57 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ron Paul for President? Forget it. Ron Paul is against a woman’s right to choose. He will lose. Women are going to make a big difference in the next election. Unfortunately most (not me) will probably be gullibly voting for HillBill unless there is a True Pro-Choice Candidate, which she is not.
Regarding either Establishment Party--doesn’t really matter much. Both, as many have said, are bought and paid for by those whose interests they maintain. And the elections are rigged. Computer voting will always result in rigged elections.
I’m with the responder who said we need to take to the streets by the millions, stop business as usual
and stop it for an indefinite period, not just a holiday weekend in Washington, D.C. What would happen if 25 million people descended on that city, demanding the kinds of things Ralph Nader stands for--living wages, ending corporate control over our lives, a clean environment, a return to sanity and upholding our Constitution, PEACE? And refused to leave. Think about it. 25 million. Yet less than 10% of our population.
We need to create boycotts, using internet communication. Start with Standard Oil, Exxon-Mobil, Shell. Stop buying their (and their subsidiaries) gas. Buy Venezuelan gas.
Remember where Georgie Porgie told you to go after 9/11? Shopping.
Well, stop. Stop mindless shopping to soothe your sense of outrage. Stop buying useless junk. For holiday and birthday gifts, educate your friends and family by giving a donation in their name to an organization that does some good for our planet, like Green Peace or Amnesty International or PETA or Planned Parenthood. Give them some information about the organization. Maybe it will start a trend. Personally, I have asked all of my friends to stop buying me frivolous gifts and donate instead. It makes me feel better, and I think them, too. And, it makes a difference.
Buy green products made in the U.S. Don’t shop in WalMart. Don’t eat at McPoison. Use products that have not been tested on tortured animals. Buy products from The Body Shop and other socially conscious businesses. Stand up for your values, spend in accordance with them.
Buy Fair Trade products. Shop local. You will find that even if a particular product costs a little more than the crap (from China) you get at WalMart you will actually save money (and your health). WalMart and other such pigpits depend on “temptations” and people always buy more than they went in for. And they get crappy products.
Wake up. Practice conscious consumption. Minimize it. Corporations, with their slick advertising in all the media, have got us all by the you-know-whats. And they depend on us for their corporate profits. Quit filling their coffers. Or at least start thinking about what and how you consume.
I hope Nader does run again and that he runs Green.
I think there is so much rage against The Machine out there that he might have a chance (if, of course, he is allowed on the ballot and they are paper and there is lots of oversight in the counting). Big If. But we can only give it the best shot we have to make that happen. Get Active!
Go Ralph!
Report thisBy gravel kucinich paul nader, November 9, 2007 at 11:44 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
We cast our votes for the best candidate. THIS time more people will do the same.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, November 9, 2007 at 8:59 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
112533 by mike kohr on 11/09 at 5:01 am
“Nader and his supporters insistance on getting ALL or nothing acheived their goal and more.”
Actually it is the Republicans and the Democrats that insist on “getting all or nothing.” My former GOP has continually taken fiscal conservatives for granted as the Democratic party dose their “progressive wing.”
I’m done being a “party-line man.” NO ONE will even take my personal vote for granted again.
I will not (under any circumstances) vote for either the three Democratic or the three Republican front runners. They in no way represent my interests.
I will not (as the major parties have hoped for years) stay home and give up.
I shall vote Kucinich in the Maine Primary, but if he loses I will vote Nader, Paul,or Gravel, in the General election.
See, Nader is not a “spoiler” because rather than vote for Gore (the corporate elitist, war hawk with the junk-yard-dog VP) I would have voted Gus Hall… and he’s dead!
Report thisBy mike kohr, November 9, 2007 at 5:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nader and his supporters insistance on getting ALL or nothing acheived their goal and more. Instead of the inevitable and predictable nothing, they deleivered to America the net negative that is George W. Bush and the neo-cons, that have fubared up everything they touched.
The blood of thousands of US soldiers and +100,000 Iraqi’s stains the hands of both crowds. May they spend the rest of their lives trying to wash the stain away.
mike kohr
Report thismkohr at dishmail dot net
By ender, November 8, 2007 at 10:17 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nader is no God, but in the sewer pit of American politics, he is a moral giant and a rare advocate for truth in Govt.
Report thisBy gravel kucinich paul nader, November 7, 2007 at 10:24 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
4 united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist. honesty compassion intelligence guts…
Report thisBy Rusty Scalf, November 7, 2007 at 3:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
When is all the Nader worship going to end? Truly, this is maddening! The man is no saint! He and his sister have run all but one of their non-profits like dictators: Union-busting, Never countenancing dissent or even criticism. In 2000 he ran _Against_ Al Gore and ignored W Bush almost completely. By the end of the campaign he took Republican money for TV ads and, there is circumstantial evidence, collaborated with the GOP. Most of his campaigns energy focused on battleground states. The last day of the campaign saw him in Florida.
After the election he wrote an ‘optimistic’ op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on the big improvements he foresaw under Bush.
When the clouds of war gathered, Mr Nader was SILENT.
Stop this mindless hero worship. He is a Man, not a God.
Report thisBy Scott Underwood, November 7, 2007 at 1:53 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Piss poor job Scheer. I expected way more from you and you failed miserably. Truthdig just dropped way down my list.
Report thisBy Lisa, November 7, 2007 at 1:12 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The original posts to this item are under podcasts:
http://www.truthdig.com/podcast/item/20071009_robert_s cheer_debates_ralph_nader/
Report thisBy cann4ing, November 7, 2007 at 11:40 am #
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.
Report thisBy Kevin James, November 7, 2007 at 10:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Scheer is an apologists for the Democrats. He so proudly speaks of being the left of “Left Right Center” radio show on NPR..NPR!!! NPR is the mouth piece of the State Department. They have been hard at shaping the minds of American public for a new War brought to us by the criminal regime of Bush and Company. Do you honestly think he would have a place there if he wasn’t part of the system..part of the problem..not a chance!
Report thisBy BN, November 7, 2007 at 10:35 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Robert Scheer is like so many Nader-haters - he accuses Nader of being some kind of egomaniac for trying to change things AND blames him for not succeeding to change things at different points in the debate. And I heartily agree with another poster who was insulted by Scheer’s charge that there is no third party movement, no Green Party! First of all, there are multiple third parties, millions of corporate-independent voters, creative, industrious Americans fighting against the Republicrats efforts to disenfranchise them election after election.
So-called “viable” parties don’t grow on trees. You can’t blame young parties for not being able to compete if YOU’RE not willing to help build them. Nader went a long way to build the Green Party in 2000 and continued to fundraise for them at his own expense after that election. His 2004 campaign won against baseless challenge after frivilous challenge by the Dems against Nader-Camejo’s ballot access. Those wins and Nader’s suit now agains the DNC and its allies in their conspiracy to deny voters the right to vote for Nader-Camejo are essential to the survivial of third party politics in this country and the possbility of them ever becoming competitive in this country!
Report thisBy joe marcinkowski, November 7, 2007 at 10:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Do not understand why Mr. Scheer doesn’t see it.
Report thisI am one of those progressive that Ralph Nader spoke about. The type that the Democratic Party takes for granted. So, I am backing a Republican candidate, Ron Paul.
By Dave Lumian, November 7, 2007 at 8:48 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Great discussion. I wish that I had been there.
What I do not understand is Nader’s approach to the preseidential campaigns. When ran in 2000 he said essntially that he was running to “build the Green Party”. Then it was reported that Ralph was still registered as an independent. As much as I admire Ralph for his admirable efforts in issue advocacy, there has always been a recod of elevating principles over pragmatism to an absurd level. I recall in the 70s, just after Watergate, when there was a Draft Nader movement. But Ralph declined to run. He said that he wanted to continue his issue advocacy work. Fair wnough but I believe that he had a real shot at winning then. The nation was looking for a “white knight” and got Jimmy Carter. Instead Ralph chose to run decades later, and in a manner, where he had no chance of winning - or really being heard. Just think if he had run as a Democrat. Minimally he would have been heard by millions in the debates. In a divided field he would have a chance of being the front runner, maybe even getting the nomination. But instead he has chosen this margianl strategy but could not bring himself to even register for the party that he was helping build! BTW: Ralph ran in 1996 too but did not campain much!
Report thisBy loveinatub, November 7, 2007 at 8:30 am #
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....
Report thisBy jimijazz, November 7, 2007 at 8:15 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I don’t care what Scheer says, the democrats are a complete sellout. If Scheer wants somebody to blame then blame Al Gore for running a terrible campaign and not standing up to Bush on key issues. Big differences eh? Hillary, Obama and the rest of the so called democratic leadership can’t wait to bomb Iran, of course with AIPAC backing. Not to mention caving on impeachment - the list goes on and on. And one more thing, Ted Kennedy can retire anytime. He was never as strong, smart, courageous and savvy as his two brothers. Scheer needs a wake-up call.
Report thisBy Verne Arnold, November 7, 2007 at 7:39 am #
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!
Report thisBy Verne Arnold, November 7, 2007 at 7:34 am #
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?
Report thisBy Verne Arnold, November 7, 2007 at 2:24 am #
#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!!!!!
Report thisBy Mudwollow, November 6, 2007 at 12:59 pm #
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.
Report thisBy ender, November 6, 2007 at 11:20 am #
The public faces of govt 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 cant 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 aint 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 dont 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 worlds largest commodity market, Oil. If the dollar becomes unhinged from the oil market, any intrinsic value is lost, and the emperors new close arent 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 wont 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.
Report thisBy Bill Blackolive, November 6, 2007 at 10:46 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nader remains the hippest.
Report thisBy ender, November 6, 2007 at 10:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The public faces of govt 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 nor 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 cant 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 aint 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 dont 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 worlds largest commodity market, Oil. If the dollar becomes unhinged from the oil market, any intrinsic value is lost, and the emperors new close arent there anymore.
That is why the only way Iran can avoid being the cause of WWIII is to rejoin the Dollar based oil bourse. Saddam refused and we saw his fake execution. The Iranian people probably wont be so lucky. Tehran may end up a parking lot that glows in the dark for 10,000 yrs.
Israel is just a convenient tool to maintain the unrest in the Mideast that keeps despots in power. We can deal with despots. Educated, thinking humans that attempt to exercise control over their own lives are much harder to deal with. As long as they are busy hating and scratching out an existence in ignorance, the money and power just keep flowing up.
If Nader were elected president, I am reasonable sure he would either be killed before taking office, or the administration would declare an emergency that indefinately delayed tne inauguration.
Of the people and by the people has become an illusion and our vote has had its teeth pulled.
Report thisBy oregoncharles, November 6, 2007 at 8:47 am #
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.
Report thisBy Mudwollow, November 6, 2007 at 8:26 am #
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.
Report thisBy weather, November 6, 2007 at 5:39 am #
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.
Report thisBy HC, November 6, 2007 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?
Report thisBy Hank Van den Berg, November 6, 2007 at 5:35 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have always enjoyed Truthdig and your writing, Mr. Scheer, but this exchange with Nader sours me completely on your judgement. The Democrats, and you, need to get it into your heads that it was the Democrats who lost the last two presidential elections, and they lost because “they” are no different from “them.” The electorate understands this. Why can’t you, Bob?
Report thisBob, please look up the list of donors to the presidential candidates. You will see that they are the same groups. With the same money controlling both parties, how can the Democrats be any different?
Have you not noticed the true nature of the Democratic Party in the way Dennis Kucinich has been systematically sidelined during the campaign this year. The public likes him, but the party big wigs have done everything to marginalize him in their orchestrated coronational debates and through the press they control. And, they simply kicked Gravel out altogether!
Bob, it makes no difference. Don’t end up being a tool for the corporate/Democratic machine that has already been programmed to deliver another four years to large corporate interests. Nader is not perfect, but your trashing is completely off the mark.
This awful “discussion” with Nader was your worst moment. I, and from the earlier posts it is clear that many of your readers, will not vote Democrat until we see a real shift in power in that party. A vote for the Democrats is a vote for the same corporate groups that back the Republicans.
By Conservative Yankee, November 6, 2007 at 5:07 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
There are several Democratic parties… which one should we “work within?”
The DLC broke ranks with the New Deal Democrats after Mondale (a new dealer) lost in a landslide to Reagan. They fought against the nomination of Mike Dukakis (a progressive Democrat) but lost. they finally got their victory with one of their own, Bill Clinton, one of the founders of the DLC.
There is the Sam Nunn Bob Graham / Mark Warner Jon Tester wing of the Democratic party. The Dianne Feinstein /Chuck Schumer wing, and the almost extinct Paul Wellstone / Barney Frank wing.
Currently no member yo the Wellstone / Frank wing would support a DLC member, nor would the Jon Tester /Sam Nunn wing support a Barney Frank.
Working within the Democratic party means (to me) finding the DEMOCRATS! This year I’m a registered Democrat for the first time since they shot Robert Kennedy (who belonged to a forgotten wing of the Democratic party) I will vote for Dennis Kucinich in the Maine Caucus/primary. Then I’ll go looking for some folks who will try to make a difference. The current front runners (ALL DLC WING) ain’t it!
Report thisBy writeon, November 6, 2007 at 12:09 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
From my perspective I’m not really convinced that the United States is functioning democracy anymore. On one level one has “free ‘n’ fair” elections and a choice between two or more parties, but democracy has always been about more than this minimum standard.
One of the reasons there was so much opposition to the idea of democracy as a workable form of government, was the problem of the mob or the masses. Wouldn’t they, being in the vast majority, just get together and redistribute all the wealth, which was disproportionaly in the hands of the few?
Obviously this issue had to be addressed.
Then there was the problem of how easy and dangerous the mob could become when under the spell of a charismatic leader. The mob was notoriously fickel, and subject to manipulation.
As a theory democracy was interesting but thought to be unworkable in practice. How could one have democracy when wealth and power were so unequally distributed? Does political democracy really work without a high degree of economic democracy?
Clearly these are all massively complicated questions that we don’t have time or space to go into here. However, I would contend that we’ve gone beyond normal politics. Democracy in the United States is on its death-bed. The system one has now, is closer to a kind of monarchy, with an fabulously wealthy “aristocracy” who actually rule. It reminds me of France in the decades up to the 1789 revolution. Increasingly the aristocracy live in a protected and luxurious - otherworld. They have lost ligitimacy and an injection of new blood is badly needed.
Voting is not the way to change anything. I think we’re past that corrective stage. Now, “reform” will require something more; massive, popular action in the streets to bascially bring the system to a grinding halt, much like the revolutions in eastern europe. Unfortunately I don’t think the American ruling-class will react with the same level of restraint that was shown by their european counterparts.
Report thisBy oregoncharles, November 5, 2007 at 10:51 pm #
Scheer:
“We dont have a movement. Theres no Green movement. Theres 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…
Report thisBy HeartAndMind, November 5, 2007 at 9:14 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The question comes down to this: what is more dangerous, Neocons, or hyper-capitalism. The answer is obvious. Corporate power is a cancer. It’s pernicious influence has metastasized, poisoning the Potomac punchbowl.
In fact, the neocons are nothing but a symptom of hyper-capitalism (AKA vulture, mercenarial, - capitalism). Better, they are the stable boys for the wall street minotaurs who will destroy everything in their path for a fraction of a point increase on the blood-soaked floor of some exchange. Of all the potential presidential candidates, only Nader seems to have a full understanding of this. Sheer prescribes bandaids when a full-on Inc.-ectomy is what’s called for. If we don’t address this illness soon, and folks, this truly is an illness our country is facing, it will indeed become terminal.
You may be saying to yourself, ‘hold on, isn’t this country founded on free markets and capitalism?’. Yes it was, but the problem with that system, is that it is ultimately unsustainable. It works only through exploitation of cheap labor and natural resources, both of which are finite. When both have been exhausted, the Minotaurs must find other sources of cheap labor and natural resources. There is no moment when the beast will stop to consider a more sustainable model. It will exploit to it’s fully evolved ability, then it will move on. That is what is happening. From the WalMart Minotaur to the Halliburton M