We totally agree with third party candidates in broadening debate. but it is not only the media that strangles third party debate. The Party I am affiliated with ran a number of candidates in the 2004 elections. Ist of all the registering of a third party requires the collection of 10's of thousands of signatures. Then when we complied with the signatures the Democrats challenged half of them without even looking at them and we had to validate 5,000 signatures eating up our meager resources and time No media coverage or debate was permitted with the major candidates. This was repeated in the 2006 congressionals . So much for the Democratic Democrats.
What our political perspective is is unimportant. We have the Democratic right to put it forward and let the people decide. We defended Ralph Nader' battle for third party selection although we disagree with his perspective, he has every right to put it forward We advocate debate on the broadest possible basis, but the system will do whatever it can to prevent this, it has its entire existence at stake. Federal judge upholds decision to bar SEP candidates from Ohio ballot http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/sep2004/ohio-s18.shtml SEP 2004 third party debates http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/news/cam-2004.shtml On Sep 21, 10:51 pm, Doc Holliday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Q. How do you start a revolution and or enlightenment? > > A. Expose the truth. > > "WE" need a third party candidate in the debates! > > If a third party candidate is so bad for the democrats why is there no > MSM coverage of a third party candidate? Who owns the MSM in this > country? > > “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will > eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such > time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic > and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally > important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, > for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, > the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” > Joseph Goebbels > > Peace, > Doc > > On Sep 21, 7:41 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sorry, have to go Doc. > > > I am not quite sure what you are driving at, but I will try and > > respond later on. > > > I leave you with this very simplistic process I always use myself > > > First eliminate incidental issues > > > Now > > > Q. What is the main problem? > > > A. The entire political establishment is thoroughly corrupted > > > Q Why and how has this taken place? (briefly) > > > A Because firstly those seeking high office under this system do so > > for reasons of personal aggrandizement and power otherwise they won’t > > last 2 seconds in politics. Big business and government officials have > > identical interests, power and money. They also control all the power > > and the money. Deals behind closed doors are where policies and > > decisions are made; congress is nothing more than a three-ringed > > circus for the masses > > > Q Who makes all the laws, and for whose benefit are they likely to > > write these laws? > > > A Obvious. All democratic norms have been brushed aside. > > > Q How can the introduction of a third party change these material > > realities? > > > A. Of course it can’t. Business and government collusion and > > corruption can never be eradicated, they two sides of the same coin. > > > This is only the tip of the iceberg. > > > “Continually trying the same experiment and expecting a different > > answer is the epitome of stupidity”……Albert Einstein (no offense) > > > On Sep 21, 9:23 pm, Doc Holliday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > As a Marxist fan what do think a good propaganda article would look > > > like? > > > > Peace, > > > Doc > > > > On Sep 21, 2:43 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Ralph Nader announces 2008 presidential campaign > > > > By Patrick Martin > > > > 25 February 2008 > > > > > Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author > > > > > Consumer advocate and three-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader > > > > announced Sunday that he would run as an independent candidate in the > > > > 2008 presidential election against the Democrats and Republicans. He > > > > made it clear, in the course of a 15-minute interview on the NBC News > > > > program “Meet the Press,” that the purpose of his campaign was to > > > > pressure the eventual Democratic Party nominee to adopt a more liberal > > > > stance. > > > > > Nader’s three previous campaigns have involved three separate > > > > electoral vehicles. In 1996, he ran as an independent; in 2000, he was > > > > the Green Party candidate; and in 2004 he accepted the nomination of > > > > the rump of the Reform Party, the organization established by Ross > > > > Perot in 1996, which backed ultra-rightist Pat Buchanan in 2000. This > > > > year it appears that Nader and his supporters will seek independent > > > > status rather than seeking the nomination of the Greens, who are > > > > expected to name former Democratic congresswoman Cynthia McKinney as > > > > their candidate. > > > > > In his “Meet the Press” interview, Nader outlined his criticism of > > > > both parties as dominated by corporate interests and cited the growing > > > > disaffection with the two-party system as a whole, reflected in polls > > > > showing that as many as 80 percent of voters would consider a choice > > > > outside the existing political structure. > > > > > He cited a number of issues for his campaign, including the war in > > > > Iraq, the response of the Bush administration to Hurricane Katrina, > > > > the Bush tax cuts and the crisis in access to health care, as well as > > > > the impact of globalization on the living standards of American > > > > workers. He criticized Democratic front-runner Barack Obama for > > > > abandoning a “pro-Palestinian” position he had held in Illinois state > > > > politics in favor of uncritical support for Israeli oppression of the > > > > Palestinians now that he is a presidential candidate. > > > > > Nader rejected the claims of Democratic Party officials—parroted by > > > > his interviewer Tim Russert of NBC—that his candidacy in 2000 cost > > > > Democratic candidate Al Gore the presidency and made him responsible > > > > for the policies enacted by the Bush administration over the last > > > > seven years. “Not George Bush?” he replied. “Not the Democrats in > > > > Congress?” > > > > > “Every third party in Florida,” he said, “got more votes than the 537 > > > > vote gap.” He said the US should have a “multiple choice, multiple > > > > party democracy” as in Western Europe and Canada. “These are the two > > > > parties who’ve spoiled our electoral system...they can’t even count > > > > the votes, they steal—the Republicans steal the votes, and the > > > > Democrats knock third party candidates off the ballot.” > > > > > Nader has every right to run for president and seek ballot status in > > > > every state, against what will undoubtedly be another ferocious effort > > > > by the Democratic Party machine to keep him off the ballot. > > > > > That being said, Nader in no sense represents a genuine alternative to > > > > the two big business parties, or to capitalist politics as a whole. > > > > The World Socialist Web Site opposes Nader not because he chooses to > > > > run in the elections, but because of the program and perspective he > > > > advances. He is not a socialist or a representative of the working > > > > class, but a middle-class reformer who, as he explained in the course > > > > of his interview, feels shut out of the political system by the swing > > > > to the right by the Democrats and Republicans over the past three > > > > decades. > > > > > Nader spelled this out in answering the final question from Russert, > > > > about how his career as a consumer advocate had led him into electoral > > > > politics. He explained that in the 1960s and 1970s, the doors were > > > > open to him in Washington, and he could get a hearing from government > > > > officials and congressmen for policies of liberal reform, particularly > > > > related to regulating the abuses of big corporations. > > > > > Richard Nixon, said Nader, “was the last president to really fear > > > > liberals enough to change his position, signed OSHA, signed EPA, had a > > > > health plan that he didn’t really believe in, had a minimum income > > > > plan to abolish poverty, and then it started. Around 1979, the doors > > > > started closing on the citizen groups.” > > > > > After 12 years of Republican rule, Nader expected the doors to reopen > > > > after the election of Clinton and Gore in 1992, but found that the > > > > same corporate interests were entirely dominant in Washington. His > > > > discontent with the lack of access under the Clinton administration > > > > led him to launch his first presidential campaign in 1996. > > > > > In all his campaigns since, Nader has focused on pressuring the > > > > Democrats to return to some form of liberalism, not on the creation of > > > > an alternative to the entire corporate-dominated political structure. > > > > > He acknowledged this goal explicitly in the course of his interview, > > > > in which he said that his goal was “to try to open the doorways, to > > > > try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in > > > > terms of third parties and independent candidates, to recognize > > > > historically that great issues have come in our history against > > > > slavery and women’s right to vote... through little parties that never > > > > won any national election.” > > > > > Nader did not discuss, nor was he asked, about his backing for former > > > > Senator John Edwards in his failed campaign for the Democratic > > > > presidential nomination. Nader hailed Edwards’s anti-corporate > > > > demagogy in several media appearances during the run-up to the Iowa > > > > caucuses, held January 3, and issued a statement on the eve of the > > > > caucuses calling on Iowa Democrats to “recognize” Edwards by “giving > > > > him a victory.” > > > > > The statement centered on attacking Hillary Clinton as a “corporate > > > > Democrat,” as though Edwards, a multi-millionaire trial lawyer who > > > > compiled a right-wing record during his six years in the Senate, was > > > > not equally a representative and defender of the profit system. > > > > > In his “Meet the Press” interview, Nader’s illusions in the Democratic > > > > Party were expressed most openly when he declared that it was > > > > impossible for Republican John McCain to win the 2008 election. “You > > > > think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain > > > > who almost gives an indication that he’s the candidate of perpetual > > > > war, perpetual intervention overseas?” he asked, in response to a > > > > suggestion by Russert that his campaign might deprive Obama of the > > > > chance to become the first black president. > > > > > This assertion flows directly from Nader’s superficial and subjective > > > > approach to politics, based on rejection of a class analysis. The > > > > outcome of the 2008 presidential election will not, in the final > > > > analysis, be decided > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
