NADER RALLY PART 3

Ralph Nader's speech during his Madison Square Garden Super Rally of 2000

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Nader
• clinton
• obama
• barack
• hillary
• vedder
• moore
• di
• franco
• political
• presidential

[amanda2681]

If you are happy shuttling back and forth between Mc. Donalds and Burger King your whole life that is your perogative.

[madashelldude]

It doesn't matter what he says. Look at what he actually DOES on election day! He's the best friend of the republicans, a classic demagogue and a divider.

[amanda2681]

Please explain your sources

[Necrovore666]

You are deluding yourself to imagine with these "what if" scenarios that Gore would have been substantively different than Bush. He was the more aggressive, warhawking part of the Clinton-Gore tandem that pushed for the sanctions and bombings that killed as many Iraqi civilians as have died in the war. Let's leave it at that. It's not like Gore resembled a progressive or populist candidate in any way.

[TomSwervo1]

I agree on serious election reforms. Current election law is deliberately set up to discourage minor parties from even trying to run for office.

I'm amazed that the Democrats haven't really tried to change election law when they claim that Nader cost them the election. Wouldn't it be in their own best interest to fix the system?

[seltian]

I think we both agree that the system is seriously flawed, but disagree on the means to change it.

I don't understand: what has Obama proven?

[szatmar666]

I agree with you and that's exactly what my point is: in the current system which is tied 2 money in elections you cannot have a viable 3rd party. The problem is not as much the ability to raise money, but the requirement to do so. No democratic system is based on who can raise more money. In order to fix that you need a grass roots rebellion which will not be achieved within the constraints of local or presidential elections, Obama has proven that. The only way: completely erase the system.

[seltian]

The secret to building a third party would be to find a way to raise campaign money w/o selling out to big business, or to gain as much support with less money.

It's not an easy thing to do, but someone must find out how. We need men like Nader to keep trying until they find a way.

As it stands now, we have two identical parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, who won't serve anyone but big business.

[seltian]

...a Green or Progressive party, many of them would choose to vote for it because of major issues like those.

The reason the Progressive Caucus doesn't break away is not tactics, but money. The Democratic party receives enormous amount of money from big business. A truly progressive party would not accept such money, and wouldn't be offered it in the first place.

Progressive Democrats are afraid that they won't be able to raise enough campaign money if they break away...

[seltian]

Not true. If a viable third party candidate, even a very left-wing one, were to gain real power (such as by breaking off from the Democrats), they would be a threat to both parties.

Such a party would pick up issues that both parties won't touch, like cutting the military budget, getting us out of Afghanistan, or killing NAFTA.

There is a significant conservative minority that is disillusioned with the Republican party. Although they would not agree entirely with...

[szatmar666]

What proves my point is the progressive caucus in Congress. Why can't they just simply break apart from the dems & establish an alliance w them? They could simply caucus with dems and vote 4 prog laws. This way there would be a Progressive Party identified for the country as a viable 3rd party. Problem is of course that the US system is not set up for 3rd parties during elections and many progressives & dems in solid blue districts would be easy picking 4 a small unified republican minority.

[seltian]

@szatmar666

As far as working with a Congress that's 100% Republocrat, Nader has done that for decades.

He's lobbied Congress since the 60s, and has frequently gotten stuff through.

He would only be more effective if he had the power of the veto and the political capital of the President.

[seltian]

@szatmar666

You may disagree with Nader's tactics, but that doesn't make him a spoiler. He just has a different plan.

I actually agree: the Greens would be more effective if they focused on Congress now and the Presidency later.

But just because you oppose someone's tactics doesn't mean you can charge them with having no serious political ambitions. Different people have different tactical ideas. That's life.

[szatmar666]

for any such 3rd party candidacy to work properly you need IRV and a true parliamentary system, and thus we are back to square 1. Sorry, but I lived in 3 countries and I am familiar with all kinds of political systems: there is a good reason why the US has no effective 3rd party. It's fundamentally a 1 party Corporate state. Until that's challenged effectively from the grass roots like recently in Bolivia or other Latin American countries, no 3rd party will score serious victory.

[szatmar666]

so for Nader or any 3rd party candidate to be credible and not purely professional candidates and opportunists, they will have to go through the hard work of building a regional party. I am sure there are whole areas of the country that would be ready to send 3rd party candidates to Congress who r willing to identify themselves ads such, nut just simply as "independents". OW as presidents, how would they work with a Congress that's 100% outside of their party. Hence u need a parliamentary syst