[Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: Re: Chris Hedges on 2008: "This may be the twilight of American democracy. And it is better to stand up and fight, even in vain, than not to fight at all."]
Andrea Dorey
andid at cagreens.org
Fri Mar 9 09:29:31 PST 2007
On Mar 9, 2007, at 2:50 AM, JamBoi wrote:
> Andie, again you've misunderstood me.
>
> I DID hear the quote, probably before you did Andie.
>
> It was my ENTIRE POINT that Nader was refering to a void on the
> Democratic-Independent side and NOT to the Green Party when he spoke
> about potentially running for Pres in '08. AGAIN, HE'S NOT TALKING
> ABOUT RUNNING FOR THE GREEN PARTY NOMINATION. HE WOULDN'T GET IT
> IF HE
> DID, UNLESS HE ACTUALLY JOINED THE PARTY AND GOT SERIOUS ABOUT
> BUILDING
> THE PARTY. He never has and my firm prediction is he never will.
>
> And by the way, it looks like you're not following the Dem polls very
> closely because Obama has been zooming, and Clinton falling almost
> like
> a rock.
I think it depends on what poll you're looking at. Are you citing
Zogby? I think that one is the most reliable.
I don't know what polls guests on KPFA have been citing, but I
suspect that if it were Zogby they would have said so.
>
> Sure if Nader runs AS AN INDEPENDENT (which is the only way he'll
> run),
> as I said previously THE ONLY WAY HE'LL BE RELEVANT TO THE GREENS IS
> THAT HE'LL DRAW ATTENTION AWAY FROM US!!! THANKS ALOT RALPH!!! The
> good part of that is that We Greens will finally nail the coffin shut
> on being the 'spoiler' since he'll be 'spoiling' our effort probably
> more than the Dems!!!
>
> I will never be a trasher of Nader. I totally love his policies and
> his spirit. The rap on him that I think there's plenty o' evidence
> for
> is that he's a very poor administrator and can't delegate. Okay, if
> true that vice will torpedo his political chances of success and it
> explains a LOT of what we've seen (ie. him not participating in
> building the Green Parties).
>
> That aside I've been a very looooooong time admirer of Nader and will
> continue to be. I just won't be voting for him for President again.
>
> Impeach for Peace!
>
> Drew
>
> --- Andrea Dorey <andid at cagreens.org> wrote:
>
>> Now who's misunderstanding?
>>
>> I never suggested that you HAD to know him personally, although I
>> think you would benefit from meeting him and talking to him. I have
>> never been more than a witness to others talking to him, so I can't
>> claim that distinction either.
>>
>> If you had heard the quote from him being reported by all the media
>> once again interested in this progressive forefather, especially when
>> he was on KPFA, you would know that I didn't mean any vacuum in the
>> GREEN PARTY. Nader was definitely referring to the Democratic Party
>
>> and the likelihood that they were going to run Hilary; she is ahead
>> by an incredible percentage right now. I think, but I'm not sure,
>> that Nader (like Alex, now of L.A.) was not too thrilled about Obama
>> either--something about some of his early votes.
>>
>> I think you'll find that if Nader DOES run, he will definitely be
>> relevant to the GP, as he will be a lightning rod again for spoiler
>> criticism, which will take most of the zings off the GP.
>>
>> I also did not say that YOU trashed Nader, just that he has been
>> trashed--and actually by some GP folks (personal witness here) for
>> the so-called spoiler effect--but mostly by politico pundits for the
>> Democrats and the Republicans. I note, and I wonder if anyone else
>> has picked up on this, that the Republicans put up a good front, but
>
>> Nader scares the begeesus out of them. He won't shut up about stuff
>> they don't want to discuss any more than the Democrats. So they use
>> the "we're donating money to Nader, heh, heh," to try to kill his
>> candidacy that way, while the Democrats go about their mean-spirited
>> methods of intimidating the GP, a tactic that has worked very well.
>>
>> BTW, Nader was able to testify that he never accepted any of the few
>> donations that could be attributed to any Republican source.
>>
>> The pressure from both Majors certainly pushed the little lawyer from
>> TX into his original strategy of running-but-NOT-running (of course
>> only in weak Demo states--how many of those were there??!!). I was
>> there in the southland when he had to face Nader as a possible
>> candidate and he had to make his candidacy different somehow from
>> Nader, but later he picked up on all of Nader's platform and ran
>> with it--WHEN he ran--and he ended up having to back off on the NO-
>> RUN policy in more and more states as he got feedback from Greens who
>> thought his initial strategy was a crock.
>>
>> I sincerely hope that this time around we can pick someone with a
>> real strategy to end-run the media and to set fire to the
>> imaginations of the voters. That's a mighty big order.
>>
>> Andrea
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2007, at 8:57 AM, JamBoi wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, please set aside the sarcasm. I don't HAVE to know Nader
>>> personally to know his history and his public statements. He's
>> never
>>> going to join the Party (because of his pledge to his father on his
>>> deathbed that he'd never join a party) period. So he's never going
>> to
>>> be our nominee again. period. Publically he stated in 2003 he
>> didn't
>>> want to be the Green Party nominee. period. There is no
>>> 'vaccuum' of
>>> candidates in the Green Party race of Presidential nominee and
>> there
>>> never was going to be. period.
>>>
>>> Already we have Kat Swift (G- TX), Elaine Brown (G-GA), (I think
>> Kent
>>> Mesplay (G-SD, CA) and a non Green Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) thinking
>> of
>>> joining the race. Just like with Nader, if McKinney won't join the
>>> Greens she absolutely will NOT be our nominee. No way. People are
>>
>>> fed
>>> up with this phenomenon of candidates trying to use the Green
>> Parties
>>> as their vehicle to office and then doing NOTHING to build up the
>>> Green
>>> Parties and simply ignoring the Parties the whole rest of the time.
>>> Sick of it. Forget that.
>>>
>>> And furthermore I never said Nader had ever trashed the Green
>> Parties.
>>> Where did you get that??? I don't think he's somehow opposed to the
>>> Green Parties he's just sort of oblivious to us. And even
>> furthermore
>>> these folks that made the move -- what makes you assume they are
>> Green
>>> Party people??? I would NOT assume that. They are Naderites and
>> you
>>> know just as well as I that the cult of personality around Nader is
>>
>>> NOT
>>> necessarily coorespondent with the Green Parties. Most of those
>> folks
>>> bugged out when Nader said he didn't want our nomination. Forget
>>> them!
>>>
>>> Impeach for Peace!
>>>
>>> Drew
>>>
>>> --- Andrea Dorey <andid at cagreens.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am amazed at how well you know Nader.
>>>> I haven't gathered half the information about his intentions
>> although
>>>>
>>>> I have read many of his books and pamphlets and attended a number
>> of
>>>>
>>>> his talks.
>>>> All I know is, he's left the door open again, this year, to fill a
>>>> vacuum, if and when it happens.
>>>> BTW, he has never trashed the Greens in any of the tons of
>> material
>>>> by him that I've read or heard.
>>>> Andrea
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 8, 2007, at 1:29 AM, JamBoi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No Andie, you misunderstand me. He may run alright, but not as a
>>>>> Green. He didn't WANT to be nominated last time and he doesn't
>>>>> WANT to
>>>>> be the Green nominee this time. He won't even join the party!!!
>>>> He's
>>>>> made himself ineligible by virtue of choosing to not join the
>>>> Party,
>>>>> and it would be entirely inappropriate for the Green Party to
>>>> *again*
>>>>> try to run after someone who doesn't even want our nomination.
>> Oh
>>>>> he'll likely run alright, just as an independent or maybe he'll
>> put
>>>> a
>>>>> new party together. Now IMO THAT would be a real service to our
>>>>> country
>>>>> since IMO we NEED another truly progressive party in America to
>>>> give
>>>>> the Greens some competition. We are entirely too flabby and
>>>>> complacent
>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Impeach for Peace!
>>>>>
>>>>> Drew
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Andrea Dorey <andid at cagreens.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you don't listen to KPFA? On Democracy Now, Nader left
>>>> the
>>>>>> door wide open.
>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2007, at 10:53 PM, JamBoi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thing is he won't be running on any party ticket. Independent.
>>>>>>> End of
>>>>>>> story.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vote Green for Change!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Drew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- Bob Alavi <baalavi at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The comments and passage seem to generally make sense.
>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ralph Nader, in my opinion, has been the number one PUBLIC
>>>>>> SERVANT
>>>>>>>> in the country, if there were any such thing; in a true sense
>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> word.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chances are if he ran on any party's ticket, he'd have my
>>>> vote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't particularly care for any form of religious
>>>> fundamentalism
>>>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wes Rolley <wrolley at charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I am forwarding Lorna Salzman's comments regarding the Chris
>>>>>> Hedges
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> piece on Nader that has been referenced several times
>> recently.
>>>>>>>> Whether
>>>>>>>> you agree with Lorna on everything, and I certainly do not,
>> her
>>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>>> here are worth reading and her passion is undeniable.
>>>>>>>> __ Lorn'a note follows __
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not one person has yet, to any degree, rebutted the importance
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>> Nader's accomplishments or commitment. NOT ONE. What they have
>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> reveal their own failures and, worse, their continuing refusal
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> address the issues that Nader has raised in the course of his
>>>>>>>> forty-year
>>>>>>>> career. In this respect they are representatives of the
>>>> Democratic
>>>>>>>> Party, the Democrats writ small. Their only defense has been
>> to
>>>>>>>> indulge
>>>>>>>> in personal attacks, with preference given to the accusation
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> Nader
>>>>>>>> has a big "ego". What does this mean? Absolutely nothing. It
>> is
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>> refuge of scoundrels and civil society criminals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because the neglect of these issues, bounded by the perimeter
>> of
>>>>>>>> corporate control, is what distinguishes the Democratic Party
>>>> and
>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> apologists. No amount of distracting insults and accusations
>> can
>>>>>> deny
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this. The Democrats, in which we include the self-important
>> but
>>>>>>>> diminutive pundits like Gitlin, Moore and Alterman, continue
>> to
>>>>>>>> deliberately avoid discussing Nader's accusations and issues.
>>>> Not
>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> them has come up with a single example of the Democratic
>> Party's
>>>>>>>> vaunted
>>>>>>>> progressivism and achievements. For those with short memories,
>>>>>> Hedges
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> reiterates the record of Bill Clinton below, and it would
>> easily
>>>>>> fit
>>>>>>>> onto any traditional Republican list. Compared to Nixon,
>> Clinton
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> neo-con.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need to remind ourselves of the huge gap between those of
>> us
>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> distrust and disagree with the abominable electoral system and
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> character of American culture and politics, and those who have
>>>>>> meekly
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> accepted it as the "best of all possible worlds". No one has
>>>>>> stepped
>>>>>>>> into this gap unless you include the brainless witless extreme
>>>>>> left,
>>>>>>>> whose praxis and objectives eerily mirror those of the
>>>> capitalist
>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>> they profess to hate. A progressive revolutionary vision has
>>>> been
>>>>>>>> articulated (and then only partially and ineffectively) by
>> some
>>>>>>>> environmental leaders, decentralists, bioregionalists, and
>>>>>>>> occasionally
>>>>>>>> some honest libertarians (though not by minority groups like
>>>>>> blacks
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Hispanics). But the construction of a cohesive principled
>>>> movement
>>>>>>>> combining the best of these has not been attempted, at least
>> not
>>>>>> yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These movements talk past one another, out of competition and
>>>>>>>> compulsive
>>>>>>>> ideologies that they as yet refuse to abandon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact is that most American movements, outside those listed
>>>>>> above,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> have bought the American dream of excessive consumerism,
>>>>>> materialism,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> growth, development, all of which are not only ecologically
>>>>>>>> disastrous
>>>>>>>> but which fit neatly into the plan of corporations. Black
>>>>>> Americans,
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the most part, just want a piece of the wealth; they don't
>> want
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> break
>>>>>>>> the golden egg laid by the capitalist goose. Their major
>>>>>>>> accomplishment
>>>>>>>> has been to persuade non-blacks and paleoliberals that the
>>>> biggest
>>>>>>>> problems facing America are racism and poverty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, it would seem dumb and cruel to deny this, wouldnt it?
>> But
>>>>>> isnt
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> dumber to ignore the fact that it has been PRECISELY the
>>>> American
>>>>>>>> dream
>>>>>>>> of growth, consumption and accumulation of wealth that has
>>>>>> DEPRIVED
>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>> many Americans of their health, jobs, wealth and dignity?
>> Isn't
>>>> it
>>>>>>>> obvious that the refusal of liberals, centrists and Democrats
>> to
>>>>>>>> confront the inequity, injustice, unsustainability and
>>>>>>>> anti-environmental character of American society has
>> contributed
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> poverty and racial/economic injustice?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How can real progressives ever hope to explain this to
>>>>>>>> liberals...explain that the system they trust and love, which
>> is
>>>>>>>> amenable to incremental but marginal reforms, IS the problem?
>>>> And
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> only a full frontal attack on the system, including its
>>>> electoral
>>>>>>>> configuration, will address the problem? This is at the heart
>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> problem with the Democratic Party: that the social and
>> economic
>>>>>>>> injustices they traditionally abhorred grow directly out of
>> the
>>>>>>>> SUCCESS
>>>>>>>> of the POLIITICAL and ECONOMIC system they support, not out of
>>>> its
>>>>>>>> FAILURE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of all the failed movements, the green movement/party is the
>>>> most
>>>>>>>> prominent and the most tragic, victim as it is of not just the
>>>>>> usual
>>>>>>>> leftist infighting but of the post-modern fads like Identity
>>>>>> Politics
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and Political Correctness. What the enemies of Ralph Nader
>> (and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> present Green Party leadership) try to forget is the fact that
>>>> in
>>>>>>>> 2000,
>>>>>>>> Ralph Nader collected nearly THREE MILLION VOTES on the Green
>>>>>> Party
>>>>>>>> line. Given that the national P enrollment was, at the most
>>>>>>>> exaggerated
>>>>>>>> count, three hundred thousand members, this means that over 2
>>>> 1/2
>>>>>>>> million Americans voted for Nader!!! And they were non-greens;
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> Democrats, Republicans, independents, conservatives, and
>>>>>>>> libertarians.
>>>>>>>> They were that potential green constituency that lay out
>> there,
>>>>>> ripe
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the picking, which the Green Party then, in alarm and panic,
>>>>>> realized
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> could be the future decision-making body in the party. Horror
>> of
>>>>>>>> horrors! The Greens in Dem clothing, the centrists, the
>>>>>>>> paleoliberals,
>>>>>>>> the self-serving phony populists like Michael Moore, the
>>>>>> infiltrators
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> like Medea Benjamin, all stood to be ousted from their
>> positions
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> power by....choke.....AMERICANS! What could be scarier?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't blame the paleoliberals for hating Nader because I
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> their fears. They have been revealed by Nader as
>> chicken=hearted
>>>>>>>> phonies, utter failures, and hypocrites. They have revealed
>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>> as the embodiment of failed liberalism, the faintly
>> progressive
>>>>>> wash
>>>>>>>> painted over the cynical Democrats, and promoted by clever
>>>>>> propaganda
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that distracted people from the fundamental problems by
>> focusing
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> their symptoms instead of their causes.
>>>>>>>> And when someone prominent and respected gets the public's ear
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> exposes their failures, why of course they get mad. But that
>>>> still
>>>>>>>> doesn't make them right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lorna Salzman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have been impressed with the urgency of doing.
>>>>>>>> Knowing is not enough; we must apply.
>>>>>>>> Being willing is not enough;
>>>>>>>> We must do. –Leonardo DaVinci
>>>>>>>> Wesley C. Rolley
>>>>>>>> 17211 Quail Court
>>>>>>>> Morgan Hill, CA 95037
>>>>>>>> (408)778-3024 - http://cagreening.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:19:55 -0500
>>>>>>>> To: esalzman at aba.org
>>>>>>>> From: Lorna Salzman <lsalzman at rcn.com>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Chris Hedges on 2008: "This may be the twilight
>> of
>>>>>>>> American
>>>>>>>> democracy. And it is better to stand up and fight, even in
>> vain,
>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> not to fight at all."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not one person has yet, to any degree, rebutted the
>>>>>> importance
>>>>>>>> of Ralph Nader's accomplishments or commitment. NOT ONE. What
>>>> they
>>>>>>>> have done is reveal their own failures and, worse, their
>>>>>> continuing
>>>>>>>> refusal to address the issues that Nader has raised in the
>>>> course
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> his forty-year career. In this respect they are
>> representatives
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the Democratic Party, the Democrats writ small. Their only
>>>> defense
>>>>>>>> has been to indulge in personal attacks, with preference given
>>>> to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> accusation that Nader has a big "ego". What does this mean?
>>>>>>>> Absolutely nothing. It is the last refuge of scoundrels and
>>>> civil
>>>>>>>> society criminals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because the neglect of these issues, bounded by the
>> perimeter
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> corporate control, is what distinguishes the Democratic Party
>>>> and
>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> apologists. No amount of distracting insults and accusations
>> can
>>>>>> deny
>>>>>>>> this. The Democrats, in which we include the self-important
>> but
>>>>>>>> diminutive pundits like Gitlin, Moore and Alterman, continue
>> to
>>>>>>>> deliberately avoid discussing Nader's accusations and issues.
>>>> Not
>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> of them has come up with a single example of the Democratic
>>>>>> Party's
>>>>>>>> vaunted progressivism and achievements. For those with short
>>>>>>>> memories, Hedges reiterates the record of Bill Clinton below,
>>>> and
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> would easily fit onto any traditional Republican list.
>> Compared
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> Nixon, Clinton was a neo-con.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need to remind ourselves of the huge gap between those of
>>>> us
>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> distrust and disagree with the abominable electoral system and
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> character of American culture and politics, and those who have
>>>>>> meekly
>>>>>>>> accepted it as the "best of all possible worlds". No one has
>>>>>> stepped
>>>>>>>> into this gap unless you include the brainless witless extreme
>>>>>> left,
>>>>>>>> whose praxis and objectives eerily mirror those of the
>>>> capitalist
>>>>>>>> system they profess to hate. A progressive revolutionary
>> vision
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> been articulated (and then only partially and ineffectively)
>> by
>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> environmental leaders, decentralists, bioregionalists, and
>>>>>>>> occasionally some honest libertarians (though not by minority
>>>>>> groups
>>>>>>>> like blacks and Hispanics). But the construction of a cohesive
>>>>>>>> principled movement combining the best of these has not been
>>>>>>>> attempted, at least not yet. These movements talk past one
>>>>>> another,
>>>>>>>> out of competition and compulsive ideologies that they as yet
>>>>>> refuse
>>>>>>>> to abandon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact is that most American movements, outside those
>> listed
>>>>>>>> above, have bought the American dream of excessive
>> consumerism,
>>>>>>>> materialism, growth, development, all of which are not only
>>>>>>>> ecologically disastrous but which fit neatly into the plan of
>>>>>>>> corporations. Black Americans, for the most part, just want a
>>>>>> piece
>>>>>>>> of the wealth; they don't want to break the golden egg laid by
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> capitalist goose. Their major accomplishment has been to
>>>> persuade
>>>>>>>> non-blacks and paleoliberals that the biggest problems facing
>>>>>>>> America are racism and poverty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, it would seem dumb and cruel to deny this, wouldnt it?
>>>> But
>>>>>>>> isnt it dumber to ignore the fact that it has been PRECISELY
>> the
>>>>>>>> American dream of growth, consumption and accumulation of
>>>> wealth
>>>>>>>> that has DEPRIVED so many Americans of their health, jobs,
>>>> wealth
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> dignity? Isn't it obvious that the refusal of liberals,
>>>> centrists
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Democrats to confront the inequity, injustice,
>> unsustainability
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> anti-environmental character of American society has
>> contributed
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> poverty and racial/economic injustice?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How can real progressives ever hope to explain this to
>>>>>>>> liberals...explain that the system they trust and love, which
>> is
>>>>>>>> amenable to incremental but marginal reforms, IS the problem?
>>>> And
>>>>>>>> that only a full frontal attack on the system, including its
>>>>>>>> electoral configuration, will address the problem? This is at
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> heart of the problem with the Democratic Party: that the
>> social
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> economic injustices they traditionally abhorred grow directly
>>>> out
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the SUCCESS of the POLIITICAL and ECONOMIC system they
>> support,
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> out of its FAILURE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of all the failed movements, the green movement/party is the
>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>> prominent and the most tragic, victim as it is of not just the
>>>>>> usual
>>>>>>>> leftist infighting but of the post-modern fads like Identity
>>>>>> Politics
>>>>>>>> and Political Correctness. What the enemies of Ralph Nader
>> (and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> present Green Party leadership) try to forget is the fact that
>>>> in
>>>>>>>> 2000, Ralph Nader collected nearly THREE MILLION VOTES on the
>>>>>> Green
>>>>>>>> Party line. Given that the national P enrollment was, at the
>>>> most
>>>>>>>> exaggerated count, three hundred thousand members, this means
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> over 2 1/2 million Americans voted for Nader!!! And they were
>>>>>>>> non-greens; they were Democrats, Republicans, independents,
>>>>>>>> conservatives, and libertarians. They were that potential
>> green
>>>>>>>> constituency that lay out there, ripe for the picking, which
>> the
>>>>>>>> Green Party then, in alarm and panic, realized could be the
>>>> future
>>>>>>>> decision-making body in the party. Horror of horrors! The
>> Greens
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> Dem clothing, the centrists, the paleoliberals, the
>>>>>>>> self-serving phony populists like Michael Moore, the
>>>> infiltrators
>>>>>>>> like Medea Benjamin, all stood to be ousted from their
>> positions
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> power by....choke.....AMERICANS! What could be scarier?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't blame the paleoliberals for hating Nader because I
>>>>>>>> understand their fears. They have been revealed by Nader as
>>>>>>>> chicken=hearted phonies, utter failures, and hypocrites. They
>>>> have
>>>>>>>> revealed themselves as the embodiment of failed liberalism,
>> the
>>>>>>>> faintly progressive wash painted over the cynical Democrats,
>> and
>>>>>>>> promoted by clever propaganda that distracted people from the
>>>>>>>> fundamental problems by focusing on their symptoms instead of
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> causes.
>>>>>>>> And when someone prominent and respected gets the public's
>> ear
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> exposes their failures, why of course they get mad. But that
>>>> still
>>>>>>>> doesn't make them right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lorna Salzman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Funiciello Sent:
>>>>>> Monday,
>>>>>>>> February 26, 2007 12:48 PM Subject: Chris Hedges on 2008:
>> "This
>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>> be the twilight of American democracy. And it is better to
>> stand
>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>> and fight, even in vain, than not to fight at all."
>>>>>>>> Chris Hedges Says He'll Work For Nader in 2008! When the
>>>>>> book,
>>>>>>>> "War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning" came out, intellectuals
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> peace activists alike flocked to it. It was intelligent,
>>>>>>>> well-reasoned and written by a true craftsman with some truly
>>>>>>>> horrific war stories to tell and a keen eye to analyze the
>> costs
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> all concerned. Hedges says that he will work for Ralph Nader
>> in
>>>>>> 2008
>>>>>>>> if he runs again (he will). In Hedge's article, he talks about
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> corporate rape of our government and how Nader is one of the
>>>> only
>>>>>>>> national figures to recognize this and to speak openly about
>> the
>>>>>>>> corrupt corporate ownership of our nation. He notes that
>> someone
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> Ralph's incredible resume must have only entered the public
>>>> arena
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> fight the "rapists" after their purchase of the Republican
>> Lite
>>>>>> Party
>>>>>>>> back in the 1980's and this presumes that those who further
>> the
>>>>>> "ego
>>>>>>>> trip" theory are just buying into propaganda for those too
>>>> limited
>>>>>>>> intellectually to think for themselves. Thank
>>>>>>>> you Chris Hedges for being brave enough to tell the truth! I
>>>>>>>> sincerely hope that the "propaganda-eaters" don't malign and
>>>> abuse
>>>>>>>> you for telling the truth, though I suspect they will. They
>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> appreciate the truth at all and they don't like to talk about
>> it
>>>>>>>> either. On a similar topic, I spent half a day on
>>>> "Democratic
>>>>>>>> Underground" about a month ago and was kicked off (with
>>>> absolutely
>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> explanation). For those unfamiliar, DU is a website with many
>>>>>> forums
>>>>>>>> to discuss "progressive" issues, like who you like better,
>> Gore
>>>> or
>>>>>>>> Hillary. They also enjoy talking about which pro-war
>> Democratic
>>>>>>>> candidate they should vote for to end the war. Not exactly a
>>>>>> hotbed
>>>>>>>> of rational thought .... but they're Democrats. What do you
>>>>>> expect?
>>>>>>>> The "progressives" I was chatting with were discussing the
>> new
>>>>>>>> Nader film, "An Unreasonable Man". They were literally calling
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>> an "idiot", "a fucking asshole" and a "scumbag". I can only
>>>> assume
>>>>>>>> that this Democrat venom is residual from the 2000
>>>>>>>> presidential run although none of these idiots could explain
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> way out of a paper bag nor do they feel that they owe me,
>> their
>>>>>>>> enemy, any explanation. In their minds, Nader was that guy who
>>>> was
>>>>>>>> "not a factor" when they mailed out all the debate invitations
>>>> but
>>>>>>>> who became the "ONLY factor" when Al Gore ran such a
>> weak-assed
>>>>>>>> campaign that he lost his own home state and Clinton's, too!
>> All
>>>> I
>>>>>>>> did on the forum with a particularly stupid chatter was call
>>>>>> Hillary
>>>>>>>> a "fascist". I backed that up by asking how someone can
>> support
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Imperialist/Big Oil/Ruling Class agenda and vote for illegal
>>>>>>>> occupation and genocide and also refuse to debate your
>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>> opponents, Tasini and Hawkins? I may have also pointed out to
>> a
>>>>>> few
>>>>>>>> Nader-haters that there were many other third party candidates
>>>> on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> ballot in Florida in that infamous election and that EVERY
>>>> SINGLE
>>>>>> ONE
>>>>>>>> OF THEM had enough votes to "spoil it" for Gore. Using the
>> Dems
>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> questionable math skills, shouldn't they be
>>>>>>>> propagandizing against all of those candidates! Why have they
>>>>>>>> persisted in vilifying only ONE guy, especially when that one
>>>> guy
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> done more for them than any elected official has ever done?
>>>> I
>>>>>>>> guess they don't like having a conversation or they're just
>>>>>>>> frightened that their "logic" doesn't make any sense? Very
>>>> strange
>>>>>>>> behavior, indeed. These "sheeple" who call themselves
>>>> progressives
>>>>>>>> lack even a basic willingness to try and defend their
>> viewpoint
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> their blind obedience to their party bosses. This fearful
>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>> fortifies me in my certitude that Ralph is right and that we
>>>> need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> support him in whatever number of elections he may choose to
>> run
>>>>>> in.
>>>>>>>> Peace to all those with open minds who are brave enough to
>>>>>> stand
>>>>>>>> up and fight! ;-) Matt Matt Funiciello
>>>>>>>> mattfuniciello at earthlink.net Two Political Parties = One
>>>> Massive
>>>>>>>> Corporation
>>>>>>>> Pariah or Prophet?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/
>>>>>>> 20070226_an_unreasonably_principled_man/
>>>>>>>> Posted on Feb 26, 2007
>>>>>>>> By Chris Hedges
>>>>>>>> I can’t imagine why Ralph Nader would run again. He has
>> been
>>>>>>>> branded as an egomaniac, blacklisted by the media, plunged
>> into
>>>>>> debt
>>>>>>>> by a Democratic Party machine that challenged his ballot
>> access
>>>>>>>> petitions and locked him out of the presidential debates. Most
>>>> of
>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> friends and supporters have abandoned him, and he is almost
>>>>>>>> universally reviled for throwing the 2000 election to George
>> W.
>>>>>> Bush.
>>>>>>>> I can’t imagine why he would want to go through this one
>> more
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>> But when Nader hinted in San Francisco that he might run if
>>>> Sen.
>>>>>>>> Hillary Rodham Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee, I
>>>> knew
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> would be working for his campaign if he indeed entered the
>> race.
>>>>>> He
>>>>>>>> understands that American democracy has become a consumer
>> fraud
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> that if we do not do battle with the corporations that, in the
>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>> of globalization, are cannibalizing the country for profit,
>> our
>>>>>>>> democratic state is doomed.
>>>>>>>> I spent the last two years reporting and writing “American
>>>>>>>> Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.” The
>> rise
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the Christian right—the most dangerous mass movement in
>> American
>>>>>>>> history—can be traced directly to the corporate rape of
>> America.
>>>>>>>> This movement, which calls for the eradication of real and
>>>>>> imagined
>>>>>>>> enemies, all branded as “satanic,” at home and abroad, is an
>>>>>>>> expression of rage. This rage rises out of the deep
>> distortions
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> dislocations that have beset tens of millions of Americans
>>>> shunted
>>>>>>>> aside in the new global marketplace. The massive flight of
>>>>>>>> manufacturing and professional jobs overseas, the ruthless
>>>>>> slashing
>>>>>>>> of state and federal assistance and the rise of an unchecked
>>>>>> American
>>>>>>>> oligarchy have plunged many Americans into deep economic and
>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>> despair. They have turned, because of this despair, to
>>>>>> “Christian”
>>>>>>>> demagogues who promise magic, miracles, angels, the gospel of
>>>>>>>> prosperity and a fantastic Christian utopia. And the
>>>> Republicans
>>>>>>>> and the Democrats are equally culpable for this assault.
>>>>>>>> There are only two solutions left. We must organize to
>> fight
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> corporate state, to redirect our national wealth and resources
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> fund a massive antipoverty campaign and curb the cycle of
>>>>>> perpetual
>>>>>>>> war that enriches the military-industrial complex and by
>>>> extension
>>>>>>>> the two political parties that dominate Washington, or we must
>>>>>> accept
>>>>>>>> an inevitable Christo-fascism backed by these corporations.
>>>> Don’t
>>>>>>>> expect glib Democratic politicians such as John Edwards, Sen.
>>>>>> Clinton
>>>>>>>> and Sen. Barack Obama to address these issues. They are, as
>>>> Nader
>>>>>>>> understands, hostage to corporate money.
>>>>>>>> Nader, perhaps better than anyone else, has grasped the
>> long,
>>>>>>>> disastrous rise of the corporate state.
>>>>>>>> He and his small army of activists helped write citizen
>>>>>> legislation
>>>>>>>> in the 1960s and 1970s that gave us, among many bills, the
>> Clean
>>>>>> Air
>>>>>>>> Act, the Mine and Health Safety Act and the Freedom of
>>>> Information
>>>>>>>> Act. He worked with and was courted by sympathetic Democrats.
>>>>>>>> Presidential candidate George McGovern saw him as a potential
>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>> mate, but Nader refused to be enticed directly into the
>>>> political
>>>>>>>> arena. He was a skilled Washington insider, one of the
>> greatest
>>>>>>>> idealists within the democratic system.
>>>>>>>> But the corporations grew tired of Nader’s activism. They
>>>>>> mounted
>>>>>>>> a well-oiled campaign to destroy him. These early attempts
>> were
>>>>>>>> clumsy and amateurish, such as General Motor’s use of private
>>>>>>>> detectives to try to dig up dirt on his private life; they
>> found
>>>>>>>> none. The campaign was exposed and led to a public apology by
>>>> GM.
>>>>>>>> Nader was awarded $425,000 in damages, which he used to fund
>>>>>> citizen
>>>>>>>> action groups.
>>>>>>>> Lewis Powell, who was the general counsel to the U.S.
>> Chamber
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Commerce and would later be appointed to the Supreme Court,
>>>> wrote
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> memo in August 1971 that expressed corporate concerns. “The
>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>> most effective antagonist of American business is Ralph
>> Nader,”
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> memo read, “a legend in his own time and an idol to millions
>> of
>>>>>>>> Americans. ... There should be no hesitation to attack [Nader
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> others].”
>>>>>>>> Corporations poured hundreds of millions into the assault.
>>>> They
>>>>>>>> set up pseudo-think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation,
>>>> which
>>>>>>>> invented bogus disciplines including cost-benefit and
>>>>>> risk-management
>>>>>>>> analysis, all geared to change the debate from health, labor
>> and
>>>>>>>> safety issues to the rising cost of big government. They ran
>>>>>>>> sophisticated ad campaigns to beguile voters. These
>>>> corporations
>>>>>>>> wrenched apart, through lavish campaign donations and
>> intensive
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> shady lobbying, the ties between Nader’s public interest
>> groups
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> his supporters in the Democratic Party. Washington, by the
>> time
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> were done, was besieged with 25,000 corporate lobbyists and
>>>> 9,000
>>>>>>>> corporate action committees.
>>>>>>>> When Ronald Reagan, the corporate pitch man, swept into
>> office
>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>> set out to dismantle some 30 governmental regulations, most
>> put
>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> place by Nader and his allies, all of which curbed the abuse
>> of
>>>>>>>> corporations. The Reagan White House worked to gut 20 years
>> of
>>>>>> Nader
>>>>>>>> legislation. And, once a fixture on Capital Hill, Nader
>> became
>>>> a
>>>>>>>> pariah.
>>>>>>>> Nader, however, did not give up. He turned to local
>> community
>>>>>>>> organizing, assisting grass-roots campaigns around the country
>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>> the one to remove benzene, known to cause cancer, from paint
>> in
>>>> GM
>>>>>>>> car plants. But by the time Bill Clinton and Al Gore took
>>>> office
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> corporate state was ascendant. Nader and his citizen
>> committees
>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> frozen out by Democrats as well as Republicans. Clinton and
>>>> Gore
>>>>>>>> never met with him.
>>>>>>>> “We tried every way to get the Democrats to pick up on
>> issues
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> really commanded the felt concerns and daily life of millions
>> of
>>>>>>>> Americans,” Nader says in the new documentary about his life,
>>>> “An
>>>>>>>> Unreasonable Man,” “but these were issues that corporations
>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>> want attention paid to, and so when people say why did you do
>>>> this
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> 2000, I say I’m a 20-year veteran of pursuing the folly of the
>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>> worse between the two parties.”
>>>>>>>> The Clinton administration pushed through NAFTA, gutted
>>>> welfare,
>>>>>>>> gave up on universal healthcare, deregulated the
>> communications
>>>>>>>> industry and abolished federal aid to families with dependent
>>>>>>>> children. It further empowered the growing corporate state
>> and
>>>>>>>> exacerbated the despair that has fueled its allies in the
>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>> “For 20 years,” Nader says in the film, “we saw the doors
>>>>>> closing
>>>>>>>> on us in Washington, on our citizen groups and a lot of other
>>>>>> citizen
>>>>>>>> groups, and what are we here for? To improve the country. We
>>>>>>>> couldn’t get congressional hearings, even with the Democrats
>> in
>>>>>>>> charge.”
>>>>>>>> There is a fascinating rage—and rage is the right
>>>> word—expressed
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> many on the left in this fine film about Nader. Todd Gitlin,
>>>> Eric
>>>>>>>> Alterman and Michael Moore, along with a host of former
>> Nader’s
>>>>>>>> Raiders, spit out venomous insults toward Nader, a man they
>>>>>> profess
>>>>>>>> to have once admired, the most common charge being that Nader
>> is
>>>> a
>>>>>>>> victim of his oversized ego.
>>>>>>>> This anger is the anger of the betrayed. But they were not
>>>>>>>> betrayed by Nader. They betrayed themselves. They allowed
>>>>>>>> themselves to buy into the facile argument of “the least
>> worse”
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> ignore the deeper, subterranean assault on our democracy that
>>>>>> Nader
>>>>>>>> has always addressed.
>>>>>>>> It was an incompetent, corporatized Democratic Party, along
>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the orchestrated fraud by the Republican Party, that threw the
>>>>>> 2000
>>>>>>>> election to Bush, not Ralph Nader. Nader received only 2.7
>>>>>> percent
>>>>>>>> of the vote in 2000 and got less than one-half of 1 percent in
>>>>>> 2004.
>>>>>>>> All of the third-party candidates who ran in 2000 in
>>>> Florida—there
>>>>>>>> were about half a dozen of them—got more votes than the
>> 537-vote
>>>>>>>> difference between Bush and Gore. Why not go after the other
>>>>>>>> third-party candidates? And what about the 10 million
>> Democrats
>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> voted in 2000 for Bush? What about Gore, whose campaign was
>> so
>>>>>> timid
>>>>>>>> and empty—he never mentioned global warming—that he could not
>>>>>> carry
>>>>>>>> his home state of Tennessee? And what about the 2004
>>>> cartoon-like
>>>>>>>> candidate, John Kerry, who got up like a Boy Scout and told us
>>>> he
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> reporting for duty and would bring us “victory” in Iraq?
>>>>>>>> Nader argues that there are few—he never said no—differences
>>>>>>>> between the Democrats and the Republicans. And during the
>> first
>>>>>> four
>>>>>>>> years of the Bush administration the Democrats proved him
>> right.
>>>>>>>> They authorized the war in Iraq. They stood by as Bush
>> stacked
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> judiciary with “Christian” ideologues. They let Bush, in
>>>>>> violation
>>>>>>>> of the Constitution, pump hundreds of millions of taxpayer
>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>> into faith-based organizations that discriminate based on
>> belief
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> sexual orientation and openly proselytize. They stood by as
>>>>>> American
>>>>>>>> children got fleeced by No Child Left Behind. Democrats did
>> not
>>>>>>>> protest when federal agencies began to propagate “Christian”
>>>>>>>> pseudo-science about creationism, reproductive rights and
>>>>>>>> homosexuality. And the Democrats let Bush further dismantle
>>>>>>>> regulatory agencies, strip American citizens of constitutional
>>>>>> rights
>>>>>>>> under the Patriot Act and other draconian legislation, and
>>>> thrust
>>>>>>>> impoverished Americans aside through the corporate-sponsored
>>>>>>>> bankruptcy bill. It is a stunning record.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bush is the worst president in American history. If Gore, or
>>>>>> Kerry,
>>>>>>>> had the spine to take him on, to challenge corporate welfare,
>>>>>>>> corporate crime, the hundreds of billions of dollars in
>>>> corporate
>>>>>>>> bailouts and issues such as labor law reform, if either had
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>> stood up to these corporate behemoths on behalf of the working
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> middle class, rather than mutter thought-terminating clichés
>>>> about
>>>>>>>> American greatness, he could have won with a landslide. But
>>>> Gore
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Kerry did not dare to piss off their corporate paymasters.
>>>>>>>> There are a few former associates in the film who argue that
>>>>>> Nader
>>>>>>>> is tarnishing his legacy, and by extension their own legacy.
>>>> But
>>>>>>>> Nader’s legacy is undiminished. He fights his wars against
>>>>>> corporate
>>>>>>>> greed with a remarkable consistency. He knows our democratic
>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>> is being hijacked by the same corporate interests that sold us
>>>>>> unsafe
>>>>>>>> automobiles and dangerous and shoddy products. This is a
>> battle
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> for some unachievable ideal but to save our democracy.
>>>>>>>> “I don’t care about my personal legacy,” Nader says in the
>>>> film.
>>>>>>>> “I care about how much justice is advanced in America and in
>> our
>>>>>>>> world day after day. I’m willing to sacrifice whatever
>>>>>> ‘reputation’
>>>>>>>> in the cause of that effort. What is my legacy? Are they
>> going
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> turn around and rip out seat belts out of cars, air bags out
>> of
>>>>>>>> cars?”
>>>>>>>> These corporations, and their enraged and manipulated
>>>> followers
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the Christian right, tens of millions of them, if left
>> unchecked
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> propel us into despotism. The corporate state has rigged our
>>>>>> system,
>>>>>>>> hollowed out our political process and steadily stripped
>>>> citizens
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> constitutional rights, federal and state protection and
>>>>>> assistance.
>>>>>>>> This may be the twilight of American democracy. And it is
>>>> better
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> stand up and fight, even in vain, than not to fight at all.
>>>>>>>> Chris Hedges’ latest book is “American Fascists: The
>> Christian
>>>>>>>> Right and the War on America.”
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> NOW PLAYING AT YOUR LOCAL MARXIST CINEMA: "DR. STRANGELEFT,
>>>> OR,
>>>>>> HOW
>>>>>>>> I STOPPED WORRYING AND LEARNED TO LOVE THE BOMBERS".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
>> do
>>>> it
>>>>>>>> from religious conviction" (B. Pascal)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "We are already fighting World War III and I am sorry to say
>> we
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> winning. It is the war against the earth".....Raymond Dasmann
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________
>>>
>>> JamBoi
>>> Jammy The Sacred Cow Slayer
>>>
>>> "Live humbly, laugh often and love unconditionally" (anon)
>>> http://dailyJam.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>> ______________
>>> Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast
>>> with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
>>> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ___________________
>
> JamBoi
> Jammy The Sacred Cow Slayer
>
> "Live humbly, laugh often and love unconditionally" (anon)
> http://dailyJam.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______________
> It's here! Your new message!
> Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
>
More information about the sosfbay-discuss
mailing list