--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|- <FONT COLOR="#000099">Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! 1. Fill in the brief application 2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds 3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR and no annual fee! </FONT><A HREF="http://click.egroups.com/1/7873/6/_/1406/_/965399240/"><B>Click Here!</B></A> --------------------------------------------------------------------|e>- Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com 7/31/00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin M. Kniffin) Nader (G) has Brand-Loyal Democrats and Republicans Looking for Covers Placing the cart before the horse is the way a recent bill sponsored by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) has described the Commission on Presidential Debates' arbitrary and excessive 15% polling threshold for inclusion in this fall's meetings of presidential hopefuls. To date, Jackson's bill has only two co-sponsors--Danny Davis (D-IL) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA). Why aren't there others? Why aren't all of the members of the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, which includes New York Representatives Hinchey, Nadler, Serrano, and Velazquez, already in support of this proposal? Because the bill put forth by Rep. Jackson would provide an immediate entry into the debates for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, who is steadily and quickly rising in polls, recently reaching 8% nationally, 9% in New York and California, and as high as 11% in a new Connecticut-based poll. Nader and the Greens are working across the country to make the issue of corporate power the most basic subject of debate. And, when you recognize facts such as the $1 million dollar donations to the Republican--and Democratic--national conventions from AT&T, General Motors, and Microsoft, it's clear both parties have reason to fear unwanted exposure on this front. Of course, exposure alone is nothing new. US citizens have long figured out that the dollars of the nation's--and world's--elite is what makes the Republicrats run. The new threat is posed by the fact that there is a candidacy aiming to represent those people disgusted by the politics-as-usual that sells our national policies to the highest campaign contributors. Those people so eager to defend Al Gore--and George W. Bush--from the "dangerous" prospect that people might vote for Ralph Nader are putting their brands before their brains. Universal Health Care. Public financing of campaigns. Living Wages for workers. More teachers, Fewer new stadiums. US withdrawal from the WTO, NAFTA, and GATT. Opposition to the death penalty. Aggressive development of solar energy technology. The list goes on and on with items of vital, daily, and long-term importance--not to mention popular support--that neither Gore nor Bush has any desire or will to discuss, let alone act upon in any significantly positive way. Ralph Nader knows well how to articulate his views on these issues and once he is successful--one way or another--in debating Messrs. Gore and Bush, the US citizenry will understand there's little reason to stay bound to the "one corporate party wearing two heads," as Nader identifies the effect of the shared interests, shared agenda, and shared donor-owners of the Republican and Democratic parties. It's time that our thoughts for the White House made room for a second party, a party not fully beholden to their corporate suitors. That the vast majority of Congress drags their feet on this modest pro-democracy resolution is not surprising. That observation, however, does nothing to make it any less shameful. Kevin Kniffin Binghamton, NY July 31, 2000 607-...-.... Kevin Kniffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is a member of the Green Party of New York State. He is also a doctoral candidate at the State University of New York at Binghamton. Please contact the author if you print this letter. You can write to him via email or postal mail c/o Binghamton Greens, PO Box 83, Binghamton, NY 13905. Thank you. � For more information on Nader's rising success in the polls, please see the July 20, 2000 press release online at <http://www.votenader.org/press/000720ConnecticutPoll.html>. � For more information on the conventions and their corporate sponsors, please see the July 10, 2000 Money in Politics Alert from the Center for Responsive Politics. It is online at <http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v5/alertv5_51.htm>. � For more information on the status of House Conference Resolution #373 sponsored by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. on July 18, 2000, please see <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.00373:>. ***** http://www.zmag.org/ZSustainers/ZDaily/2000-07/07herman.htm ZNet Daily Commentary July 7, 2000 THE NEW YORK TIMES VERSUS NADER--AND DEMOCRACY By Edward S. Herman In its editorial, "Mr. Nader's Misguided Crusade" (June 30), the New York Times assails Nader's candidacy and campaign on grounds that are partly fraudulent and misleading (as I describe below). But it is also clear that this attack is based ultimately on the owners-editors satisfaction with the political and economic status quo, which Nader is calling into question. The editors claim that the two parties offer voters a "clear-cut choice," so that there is "no driving logic for a third-party candidacy this year." It follows for them that Nader is just an ego driven "spoiler," even though it is conceded that he has a "right to run." According to the Times, while Nader is close to Gore on the issues, he rejects him because Gore is "too much of an incrementalist." This misrepresents the serious differences on the issues, but it also ignores Nader's fundamental argument--that Gore and Bush are both hostages to big money, so that just as Clinton served the monied interests with only token gestures to the majority, Gore is sure to do the same. It is not Gore's incrementalism, but rather what Gore is likely to do given his and his party's financial obligations, that differentiates Nader from Gore. In his excellent acceptance speech at the Green Party Convention on June 25, Nader made numerous suggestions for needed policy changes--resting on "peoples" rather than "corporate yardsticks"--that neither Gore nor Bush have addressed. Among other matters, Nader mentioned: (1) An ending to the support of foreign dictators and the introduction of "foreign policies that support the peasants and the workers for a change." (2) A sharp reduction of a bloated military budget that is badly out of control, a situation resting on the fact that weapons manufacturers "foist weapons systems on the Pentagon, working with a PAC-greased supine Congress." Nader would finally declare that long elusive "peace dividend" that will surely continue to escape Gore-Bush. (3) Labor laws that "facilitate the organization of trade unions" and that provide the kind of statutory "social wage" that most European countries have had in place for many years. (4) Major public investments in schools, health clinics, mass transit, drinking water systems and other services that directly benefit the majority. (5) An attack on inequality via a revised tax system that no longer serves the corporate elite. (6) An ending of the "epidemic of silent environmental violence," that rests on corporate domination, as in the continued subsidized logging of the national forests. Across the board, Nader laid out a philosophy and program that was sensitive to majority and not corporate needs. He also stresses the importance of relieving America's children from "the most intense marketing onslaught in history" and the dangers of "giving too much power to the merchant mind...because its singular focus and its self-driven impulses run roughshod over the more non- commercial values that define a worthy society." This attack on advertising, consumerism, and the "let-the-fur-fly" individualism and business culture that business domination has spawned must have sent cold chills down the spines of the editorial board. The New York Times never reproduced Nader's acceptance speech, although it has found endless space for trivial charges and counter-charges between Bush and Gore, fine details of their personal histories, and the status of the horse race between the approved duopolists. The blackout of Nader's speech made it easier for them to make the false editorial claim of little difference between Gore and Nader. But it also allowed the paper to keep the issues under cover. One of Nader's campaign aims was to force a discussion of major issues that the duopolists and their backers don't want addressed. In their treatment of Nader the Times has gone to some pains to evade those issues and to make like all the real ones are being debated between Gore and Bush. Thus, in addition to failing to give its readers Nader's acceptance speech, it has covered his campaign with great superficiality, not discussing his criticisms and programs, but reporting on his financial wealth ("Nader Reports Big Portfolio in Technology," June 19), his attack on the corporate financing of the presidential debates (June 20), and the possible effects of his candidacy on Gore's electoral prospects (June 22). So the Times not only refuses to evaluate Nader as a candidate in terms of his relative integrity and intelligence, it is unwilling to allow him to discuss basic issues in a public forum. It says his "only realistic role" this year might be to throw the election to Bush--but that may be because the Times (and its confreres) will not permit Nader to serve an educational function. But the Times's dismissal of Nader does rest in large measure on his policy positions and democratic philosophy. The editors are explicitly satisfied with the range of policy options Gore and Bush allow. When they claim that Gore and Nader are not far apart on environmental issues, they do not discuss whether or not Gore would follow up any promises with action--they do not review the Clinton record in this regard, or analyse the effects of financial dependency on the gaps between promises and realization. But that is because they don't care that much about the realization of any populist promises. The Times does allow that Nader is different on "trade" policy, with Nader the "protectionist" and Gore and Bush both allegedly better serving the interests of the working class. "Protectionism runs counter to much of what Mr. Nader has fought for over the years." (The editors note that foreign competition has had beneficial effects on the auto industry.) The Times bias here is long-standing, and so is their misrepresentation of the contesting positions and facts. The paper has long buried polls that show the working class opposed to the trade agreements that it and the corporate community favor. The editors can never put it this way, but essentially they claim that the working class doesn't recognize its own true interests, only big business and the Times do, and that by a coincidence once again what's good for GM is good for us all. They also distort Nader's position, which is not anti-trade, but is against rules that take the right to control foreign investment and trade out of the hands of democratic communities, in some cases giving them over to distant bureaucracies without democratic accountability. The Times speaks for the plutocratic establishment; Nader opposes that establishment; and the paper's news and editorial position hostile to Nader follows accordingly. But it also notable, and a bit more sinister, that the paper will not even allow Nader's positions to be honestly presented and the issues he wants to address to be debated. The plutocracy reaches deeply into constraining the public's right to know. - If you pass this comment along to others, please include an explanation that Commentaries are a premium sent to Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to learn more about the project folks can consult ZNet (http://www.zmag.org) and specifically the ZNet Sustainer Pages (http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/donorform.htm). If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire, please visit http://www.eGroups.com/list/konformist/ and sign up. Or, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject: "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!" (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool catch phrase.) Visit the Klub Konformist at Yahoo!: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/klubkonformist
