Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 31, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Committed Carbon Emissions Are Rising Fast






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Robert Scheer Debates Ralph Nader

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 5, 2007
Scheer and Nader
Zuade Kaufman / Truthdig (left) and Carolyn Kaster / AP photo

(Page 5)

Nader: OK, before we go to the audience, let me just offer a defense of third parties. In American history they were the first ones who put forth the great social justice movements. We know that in the 19th century; we know that with Eugene Debbs, Norman Thomas, etc. I don’t believe in a two-party elected dictatorship. I don’t believe in a two-party duopoly.  I don’t believe in a two-party that controls a gateway to tens of millions of people by controlling a debate commission of their own creation. I believe in a multiparty, competitive democracy. That’s the only way we are going to get new ideas to get an airing. That’s the only way we are going to get new agendas to get an airing. That’s the only way we are going to get new human energies coming in.  We have a system where it’s a one-party system for most congressional districts due to gerrymandering. Ninety-three percent of all House districts are Democratic or Republican. It’s not a contest. The left people are left with one candidate, the incumbent. It’s getting worse and worse and worse in that way as they carve up the districts depending on who controls the state government, Democrats or Republicans. I find it appalling that someone as promising as Obama is talking about leaving all options on the table against Iran. We know what that code word meant. He just said that we should pursue these terrorists right into Pakistan if [Pervez] Musharraf doesn’t do it; the U.S. military will do it. Doe he have any idea of the consequences of that? To even Bush’s buddy Musharraf in terms of a revolutionary move? And this is Obama. And Edwards? What’s Edwards got to say about the Palestinian/Israeli issue? Has he put forth the kind of constructive program that over half of the Israelis and Palestinians want in a bold way? He hasn’t done that. He hasn’t challenged the military budget. Have you heard Hillary Clinton or Obama or Edwards or Richardson challenge the military budget which is eating the heart out of the necessities of the American people by taking huge middle-class tax dollars and shoveling them into the arms industry and into the corporate welfare kings and etc.? Let’s have a little higher expectation level here, and a higher urgency level. Everything that Robert said should be done, but it’s not enough. I played this game 20 years. The least-worst game. Reagan, [Jimmy] Carter—that was a choice. But then I went for Mondale, [Michael] Dukakis, on and on, the least worst. They shut us down. They shut all these citizen groups down. We couldn’t get hearings from the Democrats when they controlled Congress. We couldn’t get agency petitions on serious health and safety matters like hazardous drugs and contaminated food, and unsafe cars. They shut down the government. On citizen groups all over Washington. Not just ours. At what point is your breaking point? That’s the key. And to have a breaking point transform itself into an alternative option so people are sick of the two parties, and sick of waiting and waiting, can go and voice themselves on another part of the ballot? What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with a competitive democracy? What’s wrong with freedom of speech inside the electoral arena—like The Nation. They love my freedom of speech outside the electoral arena when I write an article or I make a speech. But when I went inside the electoral arena and exercised my right for free speech and assembly, etc. They had a full-page editorial, “Don’t run.” Let me tell you something, I will never say to anybody “Don’t run” any more than I would say to anybody “Don’t speak.” I would say, “If you run I would oppose you; if you run I don’t think it’s a wise idea.” When we opposed [Joe] Lieberman in the [Ned] Lamont race in Connecticut, and it looked like Lamont was going to beat him in the primary, a reporter calls me up and says, “Are you going to tell Lieberman not to run as an independent? You’ve been opposed to him?” I said, “I would never tell Lieberman not to run as an independent. I would say he can run however he wants and whatever way he wants and I’ll oppose him. But I would never say don’t run.” There’s a political bigotry operating here that represents itself in these terrible state ballot acts, obstruction laws that are so obstructive in so many ways that even a [Michael] Bloomberg can get on the Oregon ballot and meet all the Republicans, and the secretary of state of Oregon can change the rules after the deadline and knock him off the ballot. This is exactly what happened to the Nader/[Peter Miguel] Camejo campaign and it was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court. This is what’s going on. So, let’s have multiple strategies. You have one strategy. To get to where you want the country to go. But, let’s have multiple strategies. It isn’t that the Democrats have been right on their strategies; they keep losing. They lose to Gingrich. They lose the House. They lose the Senate. To the most craven Republicans who have ever crawled up Capitol Hill. That requires introspection; that requires an internal reevaluation, and I’m sorry we don’t, let’s go to the floor. I mean, is it OK to go to the audience?

Nader: Why did the Democrats get IRV? Right? Who knows IRV? Instant-runoff voting. So if people voted for me in 2000, their second was Gore, and their third was whoever. And none of the major candidates got a majority win, IRV, instant-runoff voting, triggers that voter for Gore. So, if they want to get rid of the third-party harassment, oh boy, harassment, they can go with IRV. But they haven’t. Only Howard Dean supports IRV.

Questioner:  You’re talking about needing to change things. I think that now, if we wanted to change things right now, if the way things are as dangerous, say, as they are because the Republicans got into power the way they did, then it would be more divisive than not, and I think that this is not the time to look for a third party or another way because we need as may people behind us in order to change the country the way it needs to be changed now. And I think that more, there are enough Republicans now who are against the state of affairs now, that they can vote for, sorry, I’m very nervous, I don’t speak very much, but I feel very strongly for this particular thing. And I think we need to make sure that we do everything to get rid of the Republicans and rid of all the horrible things. And then, when we get in, then we can change the things that need changing.

Nader: But it hasn’t been working for the Democrats. If you don’t push the Democrats to take more progressive positions, they are not going to get the number of votes. It may surprise some of you that the Democratic exit poling in 2000 had 25 percent of the Nader/[Winona] LaDuke votes would have gone to Bush - 40 percent to Gore. And the rest would have stayed home. And if the Democrats would have picked up on some of the rather traditional positions of the Green Party, like full Medicare and living wage, they would have won the election. And as a matter of fact, I think Gore did win the election. I was speaking to him some time ago and he doesn’t get into this blame/spoiler bet. He believes, as I do, and probably you do, Bob, that he won it in Florida, and that it was stolen from him from Tallahassee to the Supreme Court before, during and after Election Day. But, having said that, the studies on the dynamics before Election Day showed that every time Gore went out after the insurance, drug and oil companies, his polls went up a bit. And it also showed that had Nader/LaDuke not been in the campaign, Gore would have gotten fewer votes. Does that sound counterintuitive? Let me refer you to professor Solon Simmons’ analysis. It’s on our Web site, which we have kept open for exactly this purpose. VoteNader.org. And you will see the analysis. It was not conducted on Election Day. It’s the dynamics between the candidates. Just to give you a hypothetical. Let’s say, Democrats picked up living wage and got 50,000 more votes in Florida but they still lost by 527. But they picked it up from the Greens. Do you blame the Greens for the fact that they still lost by 527 because the Greens got 90,000 votes, only 15 percent of which were net Gore votes? I mean—it just doesn’t work that way.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Scheer: Since you’ve made—. I don’t want this to be all about whether Ralph should run or not. But I do think that there is something that we can agree on. I think the Democrats would be stronger if they took stronger positions on these issues. I have no doubt that Kerry lost the election when that question was posed, knowing what you know now, would you have been against the war? When he gave the wrong answer instead of saying “Heck no, you lied to the Senate. You lied to the American people. You’re a liar. And of course I wouldn’t have voted for it.” He would have won the election. So I agree with Ralph that the Democrats have a better chance of doing what this woman asked that they defeat the GOP if they take a principled position on these questions. I certainly agree with that. And I don’t think that a candidate, whether it’s Hillary or anyone else, who waffles on the war at this late date, can win the election. I don’t believe that. And so I do think that it’s not a question that I’ve asked some of the Democrats to be purists; it’s saying that the reason you won in the midterm election is because people thought you would be stronger on these issues. And so clearly the message we ought to be sending to these candidates: We will reject you because the American people will reject you if you don’t come out clearly on the key issues of the war, torture, and I can go down the list.

Questioner: Bob, you had spoken about your concern about this cabal in Washington. And right now, let’s take a look at what this cabal is doing. They’re rattling the saber about war on Iran. They’re trying to manufacture consent for another war. And what are the Democrats doing? They’re making the same mistake that they did with the war on Iraq. They’re going along with it. You have Hillary Clinton, you have Obama, you have Edwards, all saying that all options are on the table. When that military is talking about using military weapons— military bunker busters—this is really dangerous. As progressives, we’re going to vote for one of these Democrats who will make another war possible? I can’t see it.

Scheer: By the way, Obama has been criticized here. I thought Obama opened up some important distance between himself and Hillary when he said that he would negotiate within the whole list of people. And that certainly suggested to me the right way to go. I think to me he has been quite strong of the war recently. Edwards has been, I think, very clear. Kucinich, who doesn’t get mentioned here a lot, but if we want a protest person to raise the issues now, Kucinich has been unequivocal on these issues and is certainly deserving of our support. Let me just say something about Kucinich as an example. Kucinich was the mayor of Cleveland and he got defeated because the corporations went after him on public power. He wouldn’t sell the municipal public power plant. And the only reason why he came back into politics—I happened to interview him and all that, and I have known him ever since—the only reason why he got back in is because he was shown to be right. The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer said that. Now Dennis came in and everybody thinks Dennis represents Greenwich Village or something. Dennis represents a district that has sent Martin Hoke to Congress, and he was Newt Gingrich’s right-hand guy. And Dennis has made himself credible in getting 70-75 percent of the vote in a district that had sent this very conservative guy [Hoke] to Congress. So Dennis is an example of a guy who may not play well on television and so forth, but Dennis is an example of a guy who can go out and talk to ordinary Americans and present a pro-peace, pro-human rights position. I think that there are Democratic models, and I think Barbara Boxer’s victory—and people didn’t notice it. Barbara Boxer won again in California; in fact she was Red-baited, peace-baited, everything else, she stuck to her guns, she did not cave in. And she won. Handsomely. So I think that the answer to your question is, yes, we should demand to know why Democratic candidates sound like war candidates. And if they continue to do that, we don’t support them. That should be made very clear. Just as the right-wing has made very clear in their party that they will not support people who break with them on their key issues. They will not support people who are pro-choice, for example. Which is their right. So I think that a deal breaker for Democrats right now is you have to be against imperialism as evidenced by the Iraq war and ending it. You have to be for a living wage, and substantially raising the minimum wage. You have to be for incorporated human rights and labor rights and environmental concerns into international trade negotiations. You have to be for extending health care to something approximating single-payer health care. So I think you can have a bill of rights for Democrats that people in this room should adhere to and demand that a candidate accords to. And if, in fact, they don’t accord to that, you can vote against them, or write in Nader on the next election. It is your right, and it is, in fact, the smart thing to do. All I’m saying is we have a lot of room to operate in now. We have some good candidates, and we should be putting pressure on them to be better.

Questioner: I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 because I lived in New York. If I had lived in New Jersey I would have not, because it was closer. But the problem being, of course, is the Electoral College. Which makes instant run-off elections impossible unless the Electoral College is eliminated. We do not have a third-party system that allows for third parties. It would be great if we did, so we could have what we had in France last week, we had run-offs. So third parties could express their views and get heard. But, without that, the pragmatic seems to be to only ways to find a platform within the Democratic Party and make it a non-lobbying party—less of a non-lobbying party. And it seems that you could, right now, be one of those nine candidates right now vying for the Democratic combination, and it would offer a traditional platform for you.

Scheer: There was a question to you, Ralph.

Nader: Again, it’s what Greg Kafoury said in the movie “An Unreasonable Man,” you don’t go past February, if you do the primaries. Besides, the kind of compromises that they force people to make, including Dennis Kucinich, say, they forced him to make, totally intolerable to anyone who believes in freedom of the mind. They told Dennis to shut up, put his hand up in favor of Kerry, and they wouldn’t give him a comma change on the Democratic platform. He wanted certain things that were any old Democratic Party would have accepted when they were developing the Democratic platform in 2004. And they gave him nothing. He was a loyal Democrat; went through all the rules in the primaries. They gave him nothing. Not even an antipoverty platform. So, that’s part from other reasons. Go ahead.

 

Nader: See what happens when you have a little disagreement, it’s wonderful.

 

Questioner: My name is Len Lebransky, Milwaukee, Wis. My remarks are directed to Ralph Nader. There are writings so I can be more concise. Ralph, you played a very good role as a social critic. But your candidacy in 2000 brought us a mean-spirited idiot for president. A lunatic for vice president, who is also a fascist, and the Iraq war, and a Supreme Court that is the worst in our history.

 

Nader: I’ll repeat it. Go ahead.

 

Nader: OK. Basically he thinks that our campaign in 2000 brought all of the horrors of the Bush administration. That’s roughly the summary. And, you know, let me go through it again and again. There’s nothing that has kept the Democratic Party from picking up living wage, full Medicare, etc. and landsliding Bush. No. 2—the Democratic Party stopped criticizing Bush’s record in Texas after April 2000. Just like the Democratic Party convention told every speaker not to criticize President Bush for a week in 2004, they had the nation’s media on them and they didn’t criticize President Bush. And then when the Republicans met in New York, they ripped the hell out of Kerry. So that’s one. Why don’t you ask why the Democrats don’t pick up old-fashioned Democratic issues that used to beat the Republicans again and again as FDR and Harry Truman, etc., did. No. 2, why don’t you spend a little time that the thieves stole the election from Al Gore. And No. 3, just look at the analysis of how the pressure to push Gore to take a few more progressive positions, at least rhetorically, got them more votes than they would have got otherwise. Let me put it again. I have seen no scholarly analysis of the dynamics between Republican, Democrat, and Green Party in 2000 that concludes that we cost a net number of votes for Gore. No analysis. All the analyses has been the other way. Check out these studies, Solomon Simmons and others. There was even an AP poll, I’m told, two days after the election that eliminated the Nader/LaDuke ticket and had it between Bush and Gore, and Bush won. So, you just can’t look at the numbers at Election Day. You got to look before, during and after Election Day on how this enormously elaborate strategy by the Republicans stole the election from the Democrats. So focus on the thieves, focus on the Electoral College, push for instant runoff voting, and you’ve got a much more fertile, diverse and competitive democracy.

Scheer: So I’m told we have to leave the room, but I just want to throw me two cents in here and end on a constructive note. Repeat what I said before. Ralph Nader has been one of the great citizens in this country’s history. And I don’t think he cost Gore or Kerry the election. I agree with that analysis, I think that they shot themselves in the foot. And I think they should have run a more vigorous, progressive campaign. In Gore’s case, no one has mentioned it, but he distanced himself from Clinton, who was enormously popular, and he failed to carry his own home state. And if you can’t carry your own home state, you haven’t done something right in that connection. So I agree with Ralph that he should not be held responsible for the state of the country, in any negative way. I think he has been an incredibly useful person, I’m not being condescending here—this is heartfelt. I think he’s a great person. And I do think he has the right to run. ...


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Notorious Forever, February 28, 2008 at 1:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ralph Nader / Dennis Kucinich - 2008…the best ticket EVER!!!

Report this

By jibbguy, February 28, 2008 at 9:37 am Link to this comment

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!

Report this

By Mike de Martino, February 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gore/Nader 2008. Now that’s a ticket I can vote for.

Report this

By kevin99999, February 26, 2008 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment
(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 this

By cann4ing, November 12, 2007 at 11:30 am Link to this comment

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 this

By Conservative Yankee, November 12, 2007 at 6:43 am Link to this comment
(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 this

By Jaki, November 11, 2007 at 11:07 pm Link to this comment
(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 this

By cann4ing, November 11, 2007 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

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 this

By Conservative Yankee, November 11, 2007 at 6:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

112806 by Ernest Canning on 11/10 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.”

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 this

By cann4ing, November 10, 2007 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

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 this

By Jaki, November 10, 2007 at 11:54 am Link to this comment
(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.
And it is very close to midnight.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 9, 2007 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment

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 this

By Jaki, November 9, 2007 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment
(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 this

By gravel kucinich paul nader, November 9, 2007 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We cast our votes for the best candidate.  THIS time more people will do the same.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 9, 2007 at 9:59 am Link to this comment
(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 this

By mike kohr, November 9, 2007 at 6:01 am Link to this comment
(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
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Report this

By ender, November 8, 2007 at 11:17 am Link to this comment
(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 this

By gravel kucinich paul nader, November 7, 2007 at 11:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

4 united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.  honesty compassion intelligence guts…

Report this

By Rusty Scalf, November 7, 2007 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment
(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 this

By Scott Underwood, November 7, 2007 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Piss poor job Scheer. I expected way more from you and you failed miserably. Truthdig just dropped way down my list.

Report this

By Lisa, November 7, 2007 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The original posts to this item are under podcasts:

http://www.truthdig.com/podcast/item/20071009_robert_scheer_debates_ralph_nader/

Report this

By cann4ing, November 7, 2007 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

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 this

By Kevin James, November 7, 2007 at 11:45 am Link to this comment
(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 this

By BN, November 7, 2007 at 11:35 am Link to this comment
(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 this

By joe marcinkowski, November 7, 2007 at 11:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Do not understand why Mr. Scheer doesn’t see it.
I 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.

Report this

By Dave Lumian, November 7, 2007 at 9:48 am Link to this comment
(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 this

By loveinatub, November 7, 2007 at 9:30 am Link to this comment

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 this

By jimijazz, November 7, 2007 at 9:15 am Link to this comment
(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 this

By Verne Arnold, November 7, 2007 at 8:39 am Link to this comment

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 this

By Verne Arnold, November 7, 2007 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

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 this

By Verne Arnold, November 7, 2007 at 3:24 am Link to this comment

#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 this

By Mudwollow, November 6, 2007 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment

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 this

By ender, November 6, 2007 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

•  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.

Report this

By Bill Blackolive, November 6, 2007 at 11:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nader remains the hippest.

Report this

By ender, November 6, 2007 at 11:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

•  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 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 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 based oil bourse.  Saddam refused and we saw his fake execution.  The Iranian people probably won’t 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 this

By oregoncharles, November 6, 2007 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

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 this

By Mudwollow, November 6, 2007 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

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 this

By weather, November 6, 2007 at 6:39 am Link to this comment

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 this

By HC, November 6, 2007 at 6:37 am Link to this comment
(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 this

By Hank Van den Berg, November 6, 2007 at 6:35 am Link to this comment
(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? 
Bob, 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.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 6, 2007 at 6:07 am Link to this comment
(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 this

By writeon, November 6, 2007 at 1:09 am Link to this comment
(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 this

By oregoncharles, November 5, 2007 at 11:51 pm Link to this comment

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…

Report this

By HeartAndMind, November 5, 2007 at 10:14 pm Link to this comment
(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 Minotaur, the interests of the common man are daily being undermined. While we are artfully distracted by manufactured fears of attacks from without, the violence from within goes unchecked.

The democrats are about you, Nader is about your grandchildren. He is the only potential leader who leaves the knives at home - because he knows he’s in a gunfight.

Report this
Gabir's avatar

By Gabir, November 5, 2007 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment

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 .

Report this

By ctrenta, November 5, 2007 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Good for Scheer at the end for saying we shouldn’t blame Nader for the 2000 election. This needs to stop.

Nader is a more astute and more knowledgable critic of the Democrats than Scheer is but in the end, the only battle worth fighting for is the one Scheer is advocating; taking back the Democratic Party. As difficult as that sounds and as difficult as that will be, it certainly seems like the more effective of the two routes. IRV might be a great alternative but right now, taking back the Democratic Party is still the way to go. ... At least for now.

Scheer is right in the sense that Nader did not lay any significant ground work for third parties to to get established and I really don’t think he made an impact for the benefit of third parties. This was a clincher for me with Scheer.

But as I said in the beginning, the trashing of Ralph Nader has to stop. We DID NOT know at the time that Bush & co. was going to be so bad, so let us stop blaming this man for what happened since 2000.

Report this

By LilyMaskew, November 5, 2007 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I don’t know if a third party candidate would actually win in 2008, but such a candidate would get more votes than in the past. At this point, people are fed up with both parties, and would welcome someone who could end the war quickly yet honorably/

Report this

By Sam, November 5, 2007 at 6:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you Robert Bruce for the telling quotations from Gore.  Progressives seem to have horrible amnesia with regard to Gore ever since he made his movie.  Here are some more inconvenient truths about Gore for anyone who still thinks there’s a huge difference between Bush and Gore.

- Throughout most of his career, he was pro-life and had an 84% anti-abortion rating from the National Right to Life Committee.
- From 1979 – 81, he voted five times on the side of a Republican sponsored rider that granted a tax exemption for schools like Bob Jones University that discriminate on the basis of race.
- He was openly anti-gay, calling homosexuality “abnormal” and “wrong,” and telling the Tennessean in 1984 that he did “not believe it is simply an acceptable alternative that society should affirm.”
- Gore was such a strong supporter of the gun lobby, ultimately voting against the critical 1985 legislation for a mandatory 14-day waiting period for handgun purchases, that National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre once said, “We could have made Al Gore NRA Man of the Year – every single vote.”
- When it came time to vote on conservative Supreme Court nominees, Gore publicly praised but voted against the scandal-ridden Clarence Thomas. He voted in Antonin Scalia.
- Al Gore was one of only ten Democrats to break with the party and vote for President Bush Sr.’s Gulf War in 1991.
- In 1997, Gore championed the privatization of California’s National Oil Reserve, and the subsequent drilling by Occidental that resulted in serious environmental damage, destruction to a sacred Indian burial ground and a windfall for his family trust’s Occidental stocks.

Source: http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/2301/Some_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore

Report this

By Sam, November 5, 2007 at 6:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you Robert Bruce for the telling quotations from Gore.  Progressives seem to have horrible amnesia we regard to Gore ever since he made his movie.

Here are some more inconvenient truths about Gore for anyone who still thinks there’s a huge difference between Bush and Gore.

- Throughout most of his career, he was pro-life and had an 84% anti-abortion rating from the National Right to Life Committee.
- From 1979 – 81, he voted five times on the side of a Republican sponsored rider that granted a tax exemption for schools like Bob Jones University that discriminate on the basis of race.
- He was openly anti-gay, calling homosexuality “abnormal” and “wrong,” and telling the Tennessean in 1984 that he did “not believe it is simply an acceptable alternative that society should affirm.”
- Gore was such a strong supporter of the gun lobby, ultimately voting against the critical 1985 legislation for a mandatory 14-day waiting period for handgun purchases, that National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre once said, “We could have made Al Gore NRA Man of the Year – every single vote.”
- When it came time to vote on conservative Supreme Court nominees, Gore publicly praised but voted against the scandal-ridden Clarence Thomas. He voted in Antonin Scalia.
- Al Gore was one of only ten Democrats to break with the party and vote for President Bush Sr.’s Gulf War in 1991.
- In 1997, Gore championed the privatization of California’s National Oil Reserve, and the subsequent drilling by Occidental that resulted in serious environmental damage, destruction to a sacred Indian burial ground and a windfall for his family trust’s Occidental stocks.

Source: http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/2301/Some_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore

Report this

By weather, November 5, 2007 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

Mario Cuomo delivered a speech at a Democratic convention that said a great deal about the quality of American thinking at the time.
What happened to us? This is like a dark “Twilight Zone”. When Schumer/Feinstein justify a nod for Mulkasey, you’ll know that quality, integrity and honor got crushed in the rubble of 9/11.

Im a 3rd gen. Republican ashamed of the former affiliation and a qualified 3rd party may not be the answer either? Look at LIEberman, now there’s a fraud in Technicolor.

Report this

By Bobswire, November 5, 2007 at 5:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I did vote for Carter and damn proud of it.
Still have a thank you note from Carter he sent in reply to a note of support I sent him when he was being persecuted.

I agree with both Scheer and Nader.

I’m mad as hell in the Pelosi led Congress for not pursuing impeachment and trying to play fair and balanced when the other side doesn’t but will vote straight Democrat.

For the record I voted for Nader and agree that
the Washington Elite and the mainstream Media are corporate controlled.

Thanks the the intelligent debate.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 5, 2007 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

mediamouse

“...conveniently leaves out that under that great Democrat Bill Clinton’s presidency, Iraq was repeatedly bombed and as many as 500,000 Iraqi children died under incredibly harsh sanctions policies.”

I HEAR THAT!!!

We haven’t had a president who cared about real people since Jimmy Carter.  I didn’t vote for him, and didn’t cry when he lost to Reagan, but he looks much better in the rear-view-mirror!

Report this

By Nomad1, November 5, 2007 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you for an excellent discussion. Although I disagree with Mr. Scheer, his arguments for working within the Democratic Party were more compelling than most that I’ve heard.

Still, I have 3 questions about his position:
* Isn’t it good enough that a third-party bring issues to the fore (for example, as Mr. Nader did with nationalized health care and a living wage in 2000 when Democrats still didn’t see them as major issues) rather than being expected to build an electable third party? Consider that Mr. Kucinich’s presidential run from inside the party didn’t launch a measurable movement, a formidable progressive caucus, or a change in Dem party platform: why demand more from third parties than you do from in-party progressives with better access to power?

* Will the Democratic Party be more inclined toward being liberal if Cindy Sheehan defeats (or nearly defeats) Nancy Pelosi than if Pelosi ran unchallenged from the left?

* And didn’t all the lock-step progressive support of Kerry in 2004 result in Kerry getting more hawkish once the primaries (and Howard Dean) were out of the way? No pressure from the left seemed to equal total freedom for Kerry to drift to the right.

Thanks again. I had forgotten what intelligent debates sounded like.

Report this

By Clintonius, November 5, 2007 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The only three candidates that can save this country are Kucinich, Paul, or Gravel.  Only Ron Paul has a chance to win.  Momentum is building rapidly!!  Stop the corporate allied parties and support Dr. Paul when he breaks away to run as a Lib.  Notice their different ideologies…..it doesn’t matter.  We need someone to snub their noses at the corporate fascist takeover!

Report this

By Robert Bruce, November 5, 2007 at 11:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gore has been a much better public citizen then he was an elected official.  Let’s not fool ourselves, Gore was a hawk who probably would have also attacked Iraq. You can tell from his own words before the invasion.

One year before the invasion of Iraq Gore gave a speech at the Council of Foreign Relations where he talked about finishing the job of regime change in Iraq “on our terms.”

He also talked about Iran being an even bigger problem and implied an invasion of Iran would be necessary as well. Here are some quotations and a link to the full speech:

“And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

“As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan’s leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition.

“In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster.”

He also said:

“But still, the question remains — what next? Is Iran under the hard-liners less of a proliferation threat than Iraq? Or less involved with terrorism? If anything, Iran is at this moment a much more dangerous challenge in each area than Iraq. Iran is flight-testing longer range rockets. Iran has loaded up at least one merchant ship with a cargo of death for Israel.”

And:

“One of the truly bad things about our politics is that it incites each administration to attack every last thing its predecessor has done, and to either tear down what was left or rename it so that its parentage can be forgotten. We did some of that — but we also kept a lot of what we inherited from the first Bush administration and we protected it and built upon it. You know, the Cold War was won by the cumulative work of administrations from Harry S Truman to George H. W. Bush. And I hope that the present administration chooses to invest in reconstructing a sense of what bipartisanship in the defense of the country is all about: even after the planes land and the guns stop firing.”

You can read the entire speech by Al Gore on the Council on Foreign Relations web site at: http://www.cfr.org/publication/4343/commentary_on_the_war_against_terror.html.

By the way, he begins the speech by praising Bush to the hilt for his invasion of Afghanistan, his conduct of the war on terror and he agrees the war on terror would be a long, hard struggle.

I know Democrats hate to admit that their party is also a war party, funded by defense contractors, the Israeli lobby, big oil and other big business interests—but in fact it is the other arm of the American war party. And, Al Gore has a long history of being on the wrong side of wars.

If we elect a Democratic president the only question will be, will s/he kill as many people as LBJ or Truman?

Report this

By howard.schumann, November 5, 2007 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

I don’t want to rehash the battles of the 1950s, but it is rather disingenuous for Mr. Scheer to promote the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower and say there was no difference between Ike and his rival Adlai Stevenson. As I recall, Mr. Scheer was an active Marxist during the 1950s and an opponent of both of the major parties. He was certainly no friend of Pres. Eisenhower.

Apart from that, there was a wide difference in outlook and approach between Eisenhower and Stevenson. Ike became a captive of the Taft wing of the party during the 1952 campaign and refused to criticize Joe McCarthy, going as far as deleting a reference to General George Marshall (a McCarthy foe) at a Wisconsin rally. It was Eisenhower’s victory in the 1952 election that gave us Richard Nixon. In that election, the Republicans captured both houses of Congress and the Presidency. McCarthy became chairman of the Senate’s Government Operations Committee and its Subcommittee on Investigations and did enormous damage to civil liberties.

As President, Ike was a do-nothing who failed to provide any leadership in key areas such as civil rights and the Cold War. He did not actively support the 1954 Brown decision abolishing segregation in public schools. In fact, he believed that to immediately enforce the Court’s ruling was a mistake and would only lead to conflict. Critics suggest that if he had expressed a personal commitment to civil rights, the Court’s ruling would not have met with such defiance in Little Rock, and Central High could have been integrated without the employment of the U.S. Army. He repeatedly cowered before McCarthy until he was personally attacked and failed to reform the Republican Party, paving the way for Goldwater’s nomination in 1964.

On the other hand, Stevenson was a progressive Governor of Illinois who reorganized the State Police in order to crackdown on gambling. He was a staunch advocate of civil rights and civil liberties who might have taken the country into a new progressive era, avoiding the traumas of the 1960s. In the words of John Steinbeck, “Stevenson . . . has touched no political, economic, or moral subject on which he has not taken a clear and open stand even to the point of bearding selfish groups to their faces” [opposing them face to face].

To say that the difference between Ike and Adlai was tweedledee and tweedldum is as disingenuous as Ralph Nader’s claim for Gore and Bush in 2000.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 5, 2007 at 11:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

111734 by marks on 11/05 at 5:44 am

“What Ralph Nader won’t attest to 650,000 dead surely would, that there is a dimes difference between Gore and Bush.”

You know this for sure?  There are people out here who believe strongly that LIEberman and CHEATny would have pushed their “bosses” in similar directions.  Gore (after the 2000 election) didn’t strike me as someone who would stand up against a strong conflict. Even his “global warming” presentation reminded me of milk toast.

Same destination, just a different driver.

Report this
Gabir's avatar

By Gabir, November 5, 2007 at 11:16 am Link to this comment

Mr. Scheer obviously has no interest in the welfare of this country or the impending domino effect of the major problems in our own nation and abroad .
  The “Democratic” Party won the opportunity in the 2006 elections to prove to the American People that they were going to at least attempt to make changes to avert the crash our Nation is headed for . Yet once the elections were over and all the hot air was exhausted , we find ourselves worse off than before 2006 . The Republican and Democratic parties are merely Siamese twins , joined at the buttocks .
    Maybe Mr. Scheer should form a support group called DID (Democrats In Denial) because it is proven fact that nothing major has developed since ‘06 and the sad truth is that we may have a Republican elected to the Presidency in ‘08 . And by that time we will probably be gearing up for World War III .

Report this

By mediamouse.org, November 5, 2007 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

It’s an interesting debate that can go round and round while avoiding the serious issues at stake, especially how we can build a progressive/radical movement to fundamentally change society.

However, “marks” comment that:

“What Ralph Nader won’t attest to 650,000 dead surely would, that there is a dimes difference between Gore and Bush.”

conveniently leaves out that under that great Democrat Bill Clinton’s presidency, Iraq was repeatedly bombed and as many as 500,000 Iraqi children died under incredibly harsh sanctions policies.

http://www.mediamouse.org/features/053107clint.php

Report this

By Scott, November 5, 2007 at 10:40 am Link to this comment

We’ve got similar spoiler problems in Canada, our electoral riding system was designed for a society that couldn’t move any faster than a horse and buggy.

The first buggy that gets past-the-post wins and in lieu of any sort of proportional representation we routinely get so-called majority governments that are based on far less than 50% of the popular vote.

It truly sucks.

Report this

By Tom Semioli, November 5, 2007 at 10:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It boggles my mind that the editor of such an important, informative, and essential conduit for citizens to garner information about the true mechinations of American government is clueless Democrat wonk! Unbelievable!

Report this

By Robert Bruce, November 5, 2007 at 10:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Good debate. Both sides expressed their views well.  It shows how our manipulated democracy divides progressives and convinces too many to vote for candidates who disagree with progressive positions. I have no doubt that if progressives would not give their vote to candidates who do not support single payer health care, militarist foreign policy and other progressive issues than the Democratic Party would not take us for granted—but if we give them our votes they will put the corporate funders first.

It is good to see that Mr. Scheer will not support a Democratic candidate who does not seek to end the war.  Hopefully, he does not think that any of the top three - Clinton, Obama and Edwars—will end the war since all three have said they will not promise to be out by 2013. And, all three want to keep the bombing of Iran on the table as an option. 

Ironically, Mr. Scheer will have to support a third party peace candidate this year if he is going to oppose the pro-war candidates.

I urge all progressives to sign the VotersForPeace.US pledge to not support pro-war candidates.  Let’s send them a message at least on this life and death issue!

Report this

By Rusty Scalf, November 5, 2007 at 10:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As angry as I am with the Democratic leadership, I have to say that Nader et al suffer from a profound confusion. The Democratic and Republican parties are not political parties, in the European sense. Rather, they are political coalitions. In a parliamentary system, coalitions form after an election with the coalescing of several smaller parties along a rough Left/Right divide. In the US, the coalition forms before the election. That’s why Libertarian Republicans and Evangelical Republicans are in the same ‘party’. In fact, they’re in the same coalition. This is why party platforms have always been irrelevant in the U.S.  Coalitions don’t have platforms. The equivalent of the German Greens should be a ‘Green Caucus’ in the Democratic Party. It’s a structural thing. Instead of railing against the our ‘left of center’ coalition, Nader should join and thereby exert influence upon it.

  Rusty Scalf

Report this

By oregoncharles, November 5, 2007 at 10:20 am Link to this comment

What’s wrong with being a spoiler?  That’s how our system works, and the Democrats are just fine with it.  There is an obvious, available solution to the problem:  Instant Runoff/Preference Voting, in use in several American cities and some other countries.  In a number of states, including Oregon, the Democrats control the government and could reform the voting system with an act of the Legislature.  But the party opposes that reform. 

Apparently, they’d rather let the Republicans win elections than deal with a progressive party.  Why do you suppose that is?

If you aren’t working hard for IRV, the “spoiler” charge is just partisan posturing. 

The Greens and Nader didn’t make our electoral system; the Demublicans did.  If they don’t like “spoilers,” they can fix the system.  We can’t, although we’ve tried.

Next year, the Greens are going to run all out in every possible race.  So are any number of alternative parties - they’re coming out of the woodwork, because there’s major-party blood in the water and we smell opportunity.  If the Democrats are worried about that, they know what to do.

Maybe they don’t really care if the republicans win?

Report this

By P. T., November 5, 2007 at 10:20 am Link to this comment

A vote for the Democrats is a vote for more war.  All three leading Democratic presidential contenders say that if elected they would remain in Iraq.

Report this

By Mudwollow, November 5, 2007 at 10:13 am Link to this comment

If nothing else, this little interaction goes a long way toward explaining an underlying flavor at Trudig.

The only reason I didn’t vote for Ralph eight years ago was because George Bush scared the pants off me. But suppose the vote would’ve gone overwhelmingly for Gore. We would’ve ended up with Lieberman as vice President. Think about that for a minute Bob and then tell your readers how big the differences are between the two parties.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, November 5, 2007 at 8:54 am Link to this comment

Sadly, have to say that both men are right, however I have lost faith in the Democratic party, while it is home to a large number of progressives, they no longer are effective in representing the people of the Unites States.

As, you debate the issues, this country is teetering on the brink of financial collpase, engineered by the Republican party, to erase the last vestige of progressive laws from the New Deal.

During this depression, there will be nothing and no one to resurrect freedom in this country as FDR did.
As a result there will be large scale civil unrest as never before.

The first to go will be social security, then government funded pensions, and the Democrats will be complicit in their demise. They should not cooperate with Bush’s Criminal regime, it makes them complicit.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, November 5, 2007 at 6:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Everyone except Scheer seems to know that our two political parties are bookends for the same single book.

If (as Scheer claims) there is no chance of a third party win, why vote.  Hill-the-business-shill is in favor of “the war” and so is the Republican’s business shill Guiliani. The Dem front runner is pro choice, so is the R front runner. The Dem annointed queen favors Amnesty for 12 to 20 illegal aliens, so does the R front runner. Everyone except Kucinich favors Insurance Company sponsored Health care, and all of the front runners favor the death penalty. No one has jumped on the “outsourcing issue” and no one has even spoken about getting manufacturing jobs back. Clean water, clean air, energy alternatives, the loss of freedoms, the prosecution of folks who have abused power… all off the table.

Near as I can tell is we are being offered nothing but the choice of wealthy, connected status quo folks.

Hey voter, you want a White rich man, A white Rich woman, or a black rich man?  What do they believe?... don’t worry about that they all think the same.

Report this

By marks, November 5, 2007 at 6:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What Ralph Nader won’t attest to 650,000 dead surely would, that there is a dimes difference between Gore and Bush.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.