|
DEDICATED TO FREE THOUGHT AND FREE SPEECH IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHY I'M VOTING
FOR RALPH NADER
-- Democrats these days are just pro-choice
Republicans.
-- Third parties move politics in their direction even when they
don't win.
The Green Party already has; that's why Gore is pretending to be a
populist.
-- If it only takes Al Gore two weeks to become a populist, he could
become a right-wing nut even quicker.
-- I don't think a guy who grew up ordering breakfast from room
service would make that good a populist, anyway.
-- While Clinton will be gone in January, all those people who have
been covering up for him will still be around. I'm tired of hearing
Joe Conasan, Lannie Davis, and Eleanor Clift making lame excuses for
corrupt Democrats.
-- If I vote Democratic I'm afraid I might be liable under the RICO
anti-racketeering statutes.
-- I voted for Clinton in 1992 which proves my prescience isn't so
hot.
This time I'm going to trust my conscience instead.
-- Nader hasn't lied to me. No major candidate can make that
claim.
-- Nader has done more good for America than Gore, Bush, Cheney, and
Lieberman put together.
-- Nader isn't afraid to debate Gore and Bush, but they're afraid to
debate him.
-- Nader promises he'll end the drug war. Gore and Bush only promise
they've ended their drug use.
-- Nader is the only one of the three who supports public campaign
financing, proportional representation, national health care, and an
end to the death penalty.
-- Nader is the only one of the three who seems truly concerned
about the planet, our democracy, and the constitution.
-- I think the planet, democracy, and the constitution are at least
as important issues as abortion. It's not Nader's fault that women's
groups wasted their time running interference for a corrupt
administration led by a major sexual predator instead of coming up
with a strong candidate who would protect the right to choose.
-- If President Gore says we're in a crisis, how can I tell he's not
just exaggerating again?
-- Pro-Gore commentators keep saying that third parties are
ineffective, unimportant, and meaningless. In fact, while third party
candidates often lose, their programs often win. From the Populist
Party, for example, the Democrats stole the ideas of a graduated
income tax, direct election of the Senate, civil service reform,
pensions, and the eight hour workday. Not a bad list of
accomplishments for a party that got just 8.5% of the vote in its
only national race.
-- Clinton and Gore spoiled the Democratic Party long before Nader
decided to run. More major Democratic officeholders lost their posts
-- or switched to the GOP -- under Clinton and Gore than during any
Democratic administration since Grover Cleveland.
-- I'm not worried about wasting my vote. I wasted my vote on
Stevenson, Muskie, Mondale, and Dukakis. In 1992, I really wasted my
vote by voting for Clinton. I can't do any worse than that.
-- The Clinton-Gore administration has had the most number of
convictions of, and guilty pleas by, those close to it; the most
number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation; the
most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify; and
the greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions.
-- There have been 47 individuals and businesses connected with the
Clinton machine who have been convicted or pled guilty to such things
as drug trafficking, racketeering, extortion, bribery, tax evasion,
kickbacks, embezzlement, fraud, conspiracy, fraudulent loans, illegal
gifts, illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, perjury,
and obstruction of justice. And those are just the ones who got
caught.
-- My parents told me to stay away from people like that.
-- Too many people who didn't stay away have ended up publicly
trashed, blacklisted, hurt in some way, in jail, or dead.
-- For eight years the Democrats have ignored, discounted, and
dissed progressives like me. Now they say it's essential for us to
vote for Gore.
If they want us so badly in November, why weren't
they nicer to us in May?
-- The Clinton-Gore people get mean when they think.
-- Liberal Democrats have repeatedly said that the Clinton-Gore
administration was the best they could possibly hope for. I came to
believe them. That's when I decided to take my politics
elsewhere.
-- How can we expect politicians to follow their conscience if we
don't set a good example?
-- In a couple of years, I want to get one of those bumper stickers
that reads, "Don't blame me; I voted for Nader."
-- If you always do what you've always done, then you'll always get
what you've always got. I'm going to try something
different
THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
1312 18th St NW (5th Floor)
Washington DC 20036
202-835-0770 Fax: 202-835-0779
news@prorev.com
Editor: Sam Smith
INDEX : http://prorev.com
Wednesday, September 20&emdash;
Green Party candidate Ralph Nader may be locked out
of the presidential debates, but that hasn't stopped him from seeking
a way in.
Sources close to the Nader campaign say representatives of the progressive politician are talking to the Fox network about somehow including him in the first debate, scheduled for October 3, via simulcast. The candidate would sit before cameras, fielding the same questions the debate moderator puts to Bush and Gore. His answers then could be aired with clips of the debate. The Nader campaign spokesman refused comment on any Fox negotiations.
A Fox spokesperson offered few specifics. "An invitation has been extended to Nader for something revolving around the debates," he said.
Other plans call for Nader to package his own instant videotape of his answers to debate questions and distribute copies to reporters at the scene. A campaign spokesman said Nader would probably turn up at one or more of the debates, where he'll host rallies before the event. A spokesperson for C-SPAN said the cable network would televise the debates live, and cover any Nader rallies beforehand, but wouldn't try to include Nader's answers to debate questions.
Today, a small group of demonstrators entered the Washington, D.C., offices of the Presidential Debate Commission, which is housed in a PR firm. Dressed in suits, the six protesters from the Open Debate Society unfurled banners, hung a placard reading Corporate Puppet on the door, and played Beethoven on a boombox. After half an hour, D.C. police removed the activists but made no arrests. Organizer Adam Eidinger says the group, which wants Nader and Pat Buchanan included in the rhetorical face-offs, will return tomorrow to try again.
Most polls show Nader garnering a mere 3 percent of the vote. Desperately trying to jump-start a stuck-in-the-mud campaign, Nader picks up filmmaker Michael Moore today for a three-day "Payback Time: The Revenge of the Nonvoters" blitz through the battleground state of Michigan. There, labor leaders have declared support for Gore, but rank-and-file workers have rallied around Nader in the past on trade issues. The state also has a substantial bloc of Arab American voters. Nader is of Lebanese descent. Along with Ohio, Michigan is a pivotal state, where the struggle between Gore and Bush is too close to call.
Nader and Moore plan to hit several college towns, even dipping into Wisconsin for visits to campuses in Milwaukee and Madison. Tomorrow Nader and Moore travel through Michigan, stopping at Ann Arbor and East Lansing&emdash;both homes of big universities&emdash;and then head for Moore's hometown of Flint.
While Gore and Bush are pulling in megadonations and hosting gilded-plate dinners, Nader is raising money in increments that amount to cab fare. On Friday, Nader heads to Minneapolis for the first of three "super rallies"&emdash;with an announced door fee of $7. On Saturday, Jim Hightower will appear with the candidate in Seattle, at a fundraiser with a door fee of $10. These events are modeled after a rally in Portland, Oregon, a couple of weeks ago that drew some 10,000 people.
Nader intends to head East for a third super rally at the Fleet Center (suggested donation: $10) in Boston, site of the first debate, two days before Gore and Bush square off.
Tell us what you think. http://www.villagevoice.com/aboutus/letters.shtml editor@villagevoice.com http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/sendmail.php3?eid=18459 E-mail this story to a friend.
By Barry Massey
Associated Press Writer
Friday, Sept. 8, 2000; 7:43 p.m. EDT
SANTA FE, N.M. ˆˆ Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader on Friday advocated the legalization of marijuana as part of an overhaul of the nation's "self-defeating and antiquated drug laws."
Nader joined with New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a Republican, in criticizing the nation's "war on drugs" as a failed policy for fighting drug use.
"Addiction should never be treated as a crime. It has to be treated as a health problem," Nader said at a news conference where he was flanked by the GOP governor.
"We do not send alcoholics to jail in this country. We do not send nicotine users to jail in this country. Over 500,000 people are in our jails who are non-violent drug users."
Nader ˆ like Johnson ˆ supports
lifting criminal sanctions for marijuana possession. For other drugs,
such as heroin, he advocated "harm reduction"programs, such as
methadone maintenance and needle exchanges, that focus on treatment
of addiction and prevention of health problems from drug use.
Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush oppose legalizing
marijuana, according to their campaign spokesmen.
© Copyright 2000 The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Ralph Nader (news - web sites) has lived in a rented studio apartment in downtown Washington for decades. He doesn't own a car. And his campaign office, housed in a 19th-century row house, is covered with carpet remnants and boxes that double as end tables.
In this nation of shoppers, America's
best-known consumer advocate has famously little use for things.
But Nader, the Green Party's presidential candidate, has touched
Americans' lives in a variety of ways.
``I am not a Johnny-come-lately,'' he says
with a crooked smile. ``I've got a 40-year record that affects the
well-being of every person in this country.''
He was an early and forceful advocate for banning smoking on
commercial airliners, requiring seat belts in cars and making meat
safer.
He introduced himself to the country with a 1965 book on the Chevrolet Corvair, ``Unsafe at Any Speed.''
The book was dedicated to a law school classmate who had been crippled in an auto accident. In it, Nader made a then-novel argument that automobiles were dangerous not because of bad drivers but because automakers were putting profits ahead of safety.
As legislators took interest, an unappreciative General Motors hired a private investigator to tail ``Saint Ralph'' and find impropriety in his seemingly monastic life.
Instead of dirt, GM officials found themselves grilled in Senate hearings and facing a $26 million lawsuit from Nader for invasion of privacy. Nader settled for $425,000 and started a network of public interest organizations, some of which still monitor the auto industry.
In the process, he also drafted ``Nader's Raiders'' - advocates with pedigrees similar to his Princeton undergraduate and Harvard law credentials - and ever since has surrounded himself with people, usually young, who are willing to work as hard as he does.
``I'm not interested in the Lone Ranger effect,'' Nader said.``The function of leadership is to produce more leaders.''
The first raiders went to work in 1968 and took on the Federal Trade Commission. Using the Washington political and media machines, they went after misleading advertising claims and pushed for cigarette warning labels, among other issues.
Later, Nader and his organizations tackled the airline and drug industries, the World Trade Organization and now the political establishment. He makes friends who stay loyal and enemies who - years later - decline interviews to avoid his wrath.
Tall and trim, he watches what he eats, avoiding fats and meat. Though cancer runs in his family, his most publicly troublesome health threat came in 1986, when he was stricken with Bell's palsy, a facial disease that passes with time but paralyzed half his face.
He sleeps about six hours a night, and works tirelessly in his waking hours.
Even though he talks about the perils of a society that overworks its citizenry, he attracts associates that work as hard as he does. His running mate, Winona LaDuke, is launching a tour of almost two dozen states with her new baby.
``She sets her own schedule,'' he said, adding that he didn't want the little boy to fly too much.
Nader, 66, feverishly guards his personal life, to the extent he has one. Indeed, he has never married. ``My gosh,'' he has said, ``you can't do two things at once.''
Frugality rules. On the road, he stays in the homes of Green Party supporters to avoid hotel expenses, and he's known for haggling with airline ticket agents when they won't take his senior citizens' coupons.
Even so, Nader's personal assets approach $4 million, much of which is tied up in technology stocks. He says he does not take a salary from any of the public advocacy groups he founded, and lives on just $25,000 a year, funneling 80 percent of his earnings to civic organizations.
He's working with the next generation of raiders, too. ``They keep getting younger,'' he jokes.
At campaign headquarters in Washington, the kitchen is also the conference room and the place to park mountain bikes. The air conditioning barely works.
The raiders don't mind.
``Nader is the only candidate who doesn't reek of the corporate marinade of politics,'' said Laura Jones, who speaks for him.
Nader's support in polls has remained in the single digits - his high point so far has been about 8 percent - but they suggest he could hurt Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) in a close election.
In 1996, when he barely campaigned for the White House, he finished with less than 1 percent of the popular vote.
He's putting on much more of an effort this time as he carries his message in favor of corporate responsibility and political realignments, as well as the Green Party's pro-environment message.
But the consumer advocacy is always there. Finishing a luncheon meeting with reporters, he advises them to eat the remaining sandwiches before the mayonnaise goes bad.
Published on Thursday, August 17, 2000 in the Manchester Guardian (UK)
by George Monbiot
Everyone on earth should be allowed to vote in American elections. All the major decisions about the future of world are now brokered by the United States. Only the US has the power to provoke a world war. Only the US can re-engineer the global economy.
As the Transatlantic Economic Partnership - which is quietly "harmonising" our laws with those of North America-demonstrates, Washington now exercises more control over the lives of British people than Westminster.
We will never, of course, be allowed to influence the world's most important political decisions. But this autumn we can do the next best thing, which is to plead with our friends and colleagues in the United States to cast their votes against Al Gore. The only hope for both America and us is that George Bush wins.
A Bush presidency would, of course, be an unmitigated disaster. This poisonous political pygmy owes everything to the dollar and nothing to democracy. Under his governorship Texas has killed more convicts, left more children without health provision and poisoned more of its own air and water than any other state. Its spending on education, public hospitals and social services has all but collapsed.
As president, Bush would cut the scant taxes rich Americans pay, disabling America's residual public provision.He would dump the minimum wage, abandon affirmative action, sell off national parks and destroy trades unions.
He has suggested that he would like to see more adventures of the kind the US pursued in Nicaragua and Grenada, and fewer humanitarian missions. His incomprehension of world affairs will reinforce American isolationism, while his plans for a national missile defence system will launch a new nuclear arms race.
Anyone with a grain of political sense, in other words, would be mad to support George Bush. But the biggest threat to Al Gore is a defection of Democratic voters not to the Republicans, but to the Greens, and their presidential candidate, Ralph Nader. Nader will capture, depending on which opinion poll you believe, anywhere between 3 and 10% of the vote.
Crucially, his prospects are best in some of the states Gore must win to secure the presidency: Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Oregon and California. There is, in other words, a seductive if superficial truth in the assertion, aired repeatedly by Democratic party hustlers, that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush".
But Ralph Nader's campaign is about far more
than the coming election. He has launched what amounts to nothing
less than a rescue plan for American democracy, and with it, a rescue
plan for the rest of the world.
Nader, alone among the remaining candidates, has promised to tackle
the world's principal problem, namely the corporate stranglehold on
American politics.
When George Bush raises $100m for his campaign, Al Gore has to do the same. In his eight years in office, Bill Clinton has distinguished himself by amassing some one billion political dollars, almost all of them, directly or indirectly, from corporations.
This money is merely a measure of the politicians' indebtedness to special interests. The result is that the priority of both presidential candidates is to deliver not what the people want but what the corporations want. For the past 50 years, the world has been held to ransom by America's corporate oligarchs.
Ralph Nader would kick corporate money out of politics, ensuring that public campaigns are publicly funded. He is, of course, no more likely to become American president in November than you are.
The best he is likely to achieve is to hand victory to Bush, plunging the world into four terrifying years of government by morons. But the alternative is far worse. If Gore wins, backed by one hundred million corporate dollars, then the last faint hopes that a mainstream political party might fight for a change in the way American campaigns are financed will evaporate.
His victory would hasten the arrival of a new and potentially endless dark age, in which only the demands of the mighty are acknowledged.
If, by contrast, Gore loses because Nader steals his key votes, then this will force the Democratic party into the most profound self-examination in its recent history. As the Democrats come to see that they cannot recapture public trust until they have done something to earn it, they will ensure that campaign finance reform becomes the key issue in the 2004 presidential elections.
If you don't stand up for what you believe
to be right, regardless of the consequences, you will quickly
discover that there is nothing left to believe in.
The Americans, like all of us, should vote not in fear, but in
hope.
Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Al Gore's running mate, on policy issues:
ABORTION:
-Has supported requiring minors to have parental consent before
having abortions at federally subsidized clinics.
CIVIL RIGHTS:
-In 1994 crime bill, opposed letting prisoners on death row appeal
using argument that sentencing statistics show they were victims of
racial discrimination.
CRIME:
-Backed anti-crime legislation pushed by Clinton, including mandatory
sentences for crimes involving firearms.
[note: the US prison population nearly doubled during the Clinton presidency. There are now more people in prison in the US than even in China, which has five times the population.]
-Switched to favoring the death penalty from being against it early in career.
DEFENSE:
-Has sided with Republicans in supporting early deployment of
national missile defense system.
-Supported Persian Gulf War.
EDUCATION:
-Championed experimental voucher programs, letting parents use
federal money to send children to public or private schools of their
choice. Gore says vouchers would undermine public
education.
-More recently, backed education changes that do not include vouchers.
-Voted to expand tax-free education savings accounts to help parents cover education expenses in all grades and at public and private schools - an idea promoted by Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush.
ENVIRONMENT:
-League of Conservation Voters gave him 100 percent approval rating
for eight of the last 11 years, based on his votes on environmental
issues.
[note: LCV is largely a Democratic Party institution, they endorsed Gore over Ralph Nader. LCV would not consider a Senator's support for military weaponry to be anti-environment, they carefully choose Congressional votes to make Democrats look their best. See <http://www.counterpunch.org/>www.counterpunch.org for more on the decline of Big Green.]
GAY RIGHTS:
-Sponsored legislation to prohibit employment discrimination against
gays.
[note: a bit schizo considering the following two points.]
-Saying "society should not be promoting the homosexual lifestyle," backed 1994 bill to deny federal money to schools presenting material "supportive of homosexuality."
-Voted to prohibit same-sex marriage in federal law, and provide that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
HEALTH CARE:
-Opposed the Clinton universal health care plan in favor of a more
limited plan proposed by insurance companies, which are major
financial supporters of his campaigns.
-Sought bipartisan agreement on rival plans to increase rights for consumers in HMOs and other health plans.
LEGAL REFORM:
-One of only four Senate Democrats to side with Republicans in 1995
in voting to limit punitive damage awards in product liability
cases.
SOCIAL SECURITY:
-Has spoken in favor of partially privatizing Social Security, as
proposed by Bush and opposed by Gore. Told The San Diego
Union-Tribune in 1998: "A remarkable wave of innovative thinking is
advancing the concept of privatization. ... I think in the end that
individual control of part of the retirement-Social Security funds
has to happen."
TRADE:
-Shares Gore's support for liberalized trade and normalizing trade
relations with China.
[note: in other words, he supports the World Trade Organization and NAFTA and sweatshops in China, just like George W. Shrub, Dick Cheney and Al Gore.]
The Lake County, Nader For
President, campaign kickoff enjoyed an excellent turnout. Ross
mirakarimi, Nader's California Campaign Coordinator, reported that
Nader is doing remarkably well early in the national campaign. The
Green Party candidate is polling progressively better around the
country and is now between 5-8% in national polls and between 8-10%
in California. It is felt that the percentages could go up
dramatically if Nader is included in the debates. People who are
interested in reading Nader's views can go to www.votenader.org
where they can also take steps to help him be included in the
debates.
Local Greens and Friends of Nader discussed the best methods for
promoting the Nader campaign here in Lake County.Campaigning supplies
were distributed and other meetings will be held focusing on the
campaign. There will be a General Meeting of the Green Party of Lake
County on Friday August 25th from 6-9 PM in the Board of Supervisor's
Chambers at the County Court House in Lakeport. All Registered Greens
and interested individuals are encouraged to attend. To get involved
in the campaign or for more information please contact Ellen at
279-9652 or Tom at 263-4970.(e-mail tgoselin@pacific.net).
People are also encouraged to contact Representative Mike Thompson to encourage him to support (and co-sponsor) Jesse Jackson Jr.'s proposal to include candidates with more than 5% in the polls or whom more than 50% of the people want to see included. You can contact him at m.thompson@house.mail.gov
A Note From Michael Moore
X-From_: owner-michaelmoore-l@cloud9.net
Tue Aug 8 15:43:08 2000
Subject: YEAH! No Chicks on the Tix! -- A Letter from Michael Moore
Reply-To: mikemail@cloud9.net
Tuesday, August 8, 2000
Dear friends,
Women put up with a lot of crap, but this year's Presidential farce has to take the cake.
We now have four men on the "two" major
party tickets running for the White House. Neither candidate,
Democrat nor Republican, even bothered to CONSIDER a woman for Vice
President, let alone appoint one.
Women: 53% of the population -- the MAJORITY gender -- and once
again, there is ZERO representation. The minority still rules, still
calls the shots, still holds the reins of power. That's called
"apartheid."
You know what amazes me? That neither Gore nor Bush even tried to
PRETEND they were considering a woman for Vice President! In the
past, the all-male Presidential candidates have at least "floated"
some names, or said "so-and-so" was on "the short list." They thought
women might be upset if it looked like they were being ignored. So
they played the game of interviewing "Pat Schroeder" for the job, or
mentioning "Elizabeth Dole" as a "possibility."
No more.
This year, in what appears to be a political version of "battered
women's syndrome," guy politicians have discovered that they don't
have to do a damn thing to placate women voters. They are convinced
women will just take it -- in silence.
And just as Dick Cheney is the true face of George W. Bush, Joe Lieberman is the true face of Al Gore. Lieberman's number one financial backer in Connecticut is the insurance industry -- and when they say "jump," he leaps. He even opposed Clinton's watered-down health insurance bill. He is an enemy of affirmative action. He has voted for tax cuts for the rich, voted for NAFTA, supports a form of prayer ("the minute of silence") in the public schools (and the granting of vouchers to help fund religious schools), and joined Al Gore as one of only 10 Democrats in the Senate who supported Bush the First in starting the Gulf War.
In short, a real guy's guy.
Of course, not to beat a dead Corvair, there is a candidate who is
now, according to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" last Sunday,
polling between 11% and 15% in some surveys, and has chosen a woman
as his running mate. His name is Ralph Nader and HER name is Winona
LaDuke. She is a Harvard graduate from Minnesota and a Native
American. She has a bunch of wild ideas women usually come up with,
the kinds of things that probably keep them off the other tickets --
like, everybody should be guaranteed insurance if they get sick, or
working moms and kids deserve day care, or maybe we shoud build a few
less submarines in Connecticut and build a few new schools in the
Bronx. Stuff like that. Chick stuff, ya know. Stuff us guys ain't got
time for.
Ralph and Winona have tripled their standing in the polls since they started. There is a momentum taking place and maybe, just maybe, the majority - women - will rise up and say enough of this male apartheid.
Yours, Michael Moore
PS Tomorrow night (Wednesday, August 9) is the final episode of "The Awful Truth" for the season. More on this in tomorrow's letter -- and my thoughts about the Supreme Court in a possible George the Second Administration.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites) said on Wednesday he sympathized with protesters outside the Democratic convention, saying that even when protests turned ugly they still paled in comparison to corporate wrongdoing.
Nader, running on a platform of redirecting power away from corporations and back to the people, said he understood the protesters in Los Angeles and blamed the media's lack of coverage of key issues for forcing them onto the streets.
``They are reacting to being excluded by the mass media,'' Nader said in an interview at his campaign headquarters.
``If they can't get onto the mass media ... they cannot get (their message) across. So they go to the streets,'' he said.
Noting that non-violent demonstrations have been a proven vehicle for change in America since the days of slavery, Nader distanced himself from the sort of violence which erupted at trade talks in Seattle last year.
``That does not represent the Green Party. It is a small element that thinks if they smash a few windows they will get more press,'' he said.
But, despite saying he does not condone such actions, the consumer advocate stopped short of total condemnation, instead offering some justification for property destruction.
``This is nothing compared to the environmental devastation and the devastation of poverty on human beings that can be attributed to companies like the tobacco companies or the neglectful pharmaceutical industry,'' he said.
A spate of protests have taken place in the past year, starting in Seattle last November when thousands brought the city to a standstill in protests marred by vandalism and property destruction.
Espousing many of Nader's themes, the activists also came to Washington in April to decry the policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
More recently they took to the streets of Philadelphia outside the Republican convention.
While most protesters say they are peaceful, many refuse to condemn property destruction using the same defense as Nader -- that harm to property is nothing compared to the human damage done by corporate America.
But with each subsequent event, tensions appear to mount between protesters and the police, who want to avoid a repeat of Seattle.
Earlier this week, Los Angeles police used plastic bullets on protesters at a free rock concert near the convention there.
Nader rose to prominence in 1965 when he condemned General Motors' Corvair car in his book ``Unsafe At Any Speed.''
The car was withdrawn because of a subsequent slump in sales. Nader then sued GM for harassment after the company hired a private detective to investigate him. He settled out of court for $425,000 -- money he used for future campaigns.
He became known as a consumer advocate, taking up causes like road safety, freedom of information, environmental standards and better conditions for workers.
In 1996 Nader made his first bid for the White House but polled less than 1 percent of the vote on election day.
This week Nader stands a distant third in the election stakes behind Republican George W. Bush (news - web sites) and Democratic candidate Al Gore (news - web sites) with just 7 percent of the vote.
But despite that seemingly untenable position, Nader said he still cannot rule out winning on November 7.
``I wouldn't foreclose my winning. Jesse Ventura was at 7 or 8 percent and then he got on the debates in Minnesota and won the election (for governor),'' Nader said.
Nader was highly critical of the Republican and Democratic parties, who he said were beholden to corporate interests.
``Both of them are building a government in Washington of the General Motors by the Exxons for the DuPonts.''
And the Harvard-trained lawyer was even less forgiving when asked of his opinion of Bush as a candidate.
``George W. Bush is a conglomerate corporation running for president disguised as a person,'' he said.
And what about Gore?
``Al Gore is a plastic person who does not know who he is anymore unless he is at fund raisers where corporate interests pump millions of dollars into his campaign coffers.''
There are a number of persuasive reasons to cast a vote for Ralph Nader in the fall, and a number of unpersuasive reasons, too. But the principal argument in favor is this: On the 22nd of May last, Nader said without equivocation that if he had been a Congressman he would have voted to impeach Clinton and that if he had been a Senator he would have voted to convict him.
The argument that "they all do it" has,
paradoxically, become an argument with which the Washington permanent
government actually justifies itself.
It used to be a Nixonian gambit, and it evolved easily into a
Clintonian one.
But you have not broken intellectually with the consensus unless you view the phrase "they all do it" as part of the case for the prosecution, not the defense.
This sets Nader apart from most of those liberals who only affect to despise or oppose the "bipartisan" monopoly. Faced with the question, How corrupt and lawless can a man be and still be President, the bulk of the American left (which, to put it coarsely, is as much as to say the bulk of a rump) answered, Easy. He can be as corrupt and lawless as he likes, as long as he's a Democrat. After all, aren't his foes Republicans? Aren't they partisan? This riposte, insofar as it deserves the name, is one of those beliefs that are only true for as long as the speaker is stubborn enough to persist at them. It's not unlike saying that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Self-evidently, if more Democrats had denounced Clinton's abuses of power, the honor of holding this position would not have accrued so exclusively to Republicans. By a somewhat longer chain of reasoning, if all those who wanted political pluralism and a multiparty system were prepared to waste their franchise by voting in favor of it, their franchise would turn out not to be so wasted. Admittedly, both propositions are quixotic to begin with, but they do not express the obvious fallacy or tautology of the opposed positions, and they do not depend on having other people determine your thinking for you.
I had the slight distinction of being the speaker at the defeat celebrations of the Green Party in Washington, DC, on election night 1996 and I probably looked as much of a fool as I felt. For one thing, I am not a member or supporter of the Green Party. (If you care to know my politics, I am an old socialist who is living fascinatedly through a period when only capitalism seems to be revolutionary.) For another, I had been awfully disappointed at the apparent vanity and futility of Ralph's campaign.
Nineteen ninety-six was the year in which it became clear to literally millions of people that an election could be bought, party conventions could be rigged, media coverage could be arranged and presidential "debates"could be fixed. Yet those willing to work and argue for at least a protest against this--and there are times when even a protest is better than nothing--had been let down by a manneristic, even eccentric noncampaign.
It feels very slightly different this time. For one thing, the Democratic Party is not so much dead as actually, visibly, palpably rotting on the slab. The only breath of dissent in the bought-up and closed-out "primary season," where almost nobody got a chance to vote, was supplied by a reactionary crowd-pleaser from Arizona who's had it with the campaign finance racket. Meanwhile, I suppose it's possible to use the threat of Christian fascism one more time to terrify the liberals, but it's pretty obvious that Governor Bush is not a hostage to his party's Jurassic wing.
Sinister little mediocrity he may be, but who's seriously frightened of him? He's smoothly domesticated by the old moneyed establishment, just like his rival, and it's actually quite hard to picture him using cruise missiles out of personal and sexual pique, as Clinton really did do twice.
And it seems that Ralph Nader is taking the moment seriously. All the questions he is asked by the media pack have been scripted by the Democratic National Committee. "Aren't you a spoiler?" "Isn't a vote for you a wasted vote?" "What about the lesser of two evils?" And to these he has replied--with enough confidence to deter too much repetition--what's to spoil? His emphasis has been more and more on the open theft of the democratic process, on the importance of having or being able to have an election at all. His critics in the Gore camp are now so degenerated that they don't mind saying a rigged and bought election is fine if only their side wins it. Their objection to Nader's running is not merely an objection to his program, but--keep your eye on this point--to the fact of his daring to run at all. Even the Mexican system has more capacity for shame than that.
Now I know that many of you are sincerely, gravely, brow-furrowingly worried about which future monarch gets to appoint which future Justice. But why not admit it? You don't really know, and you won't really be asked, who will fill the next Supreme Court seat. (And it was the Democratic majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee, not George Bush senior, who made Clarence Thomas a Supreme.) It is as possible, in theory as well as practice, to imagine Gore making a safe and stupid reactionary appointment as it is to picture Bush making an "unpredictable" centrist one. The point, though, is that it is servile to wait upon their pleasure and caprice in this way.
The ruling class doesn't have to play the humiliating roulette of "lesser evil." It has its bets covered by ownership of the casino. It has, as far as is possible, everything under control and all contingencies provided for.
Casinos are places where, oddly enough, poor people go to transfer their money to rich people. (And that's just what you do, buster, and you too, honey, when you make your campaign donations.) But, just as the casino owner would have to work or starve without the endless gullibility of the punter, the whole two-party machine would stall if people stopped playing the existing odds. It's the one freedom that can't be taken away or "factored in," and it is, thus, the one faculty that most needs a vigorous and unabashed exercise. If I was shyly asked when people should dare allow themselves this frightening liberty, I'd say the time was 'round about now.
Jonathan Lundell.
# 01341 hits since July 19 2006