Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

Dear Ralph Nader,

I supported you throughout your campaign. I made phone calls, blogged and dug articles. I have stood behind you when I argued politics with people from around the world and with Americans who were voting. In the end, I mailed in my ballot marked Ralph Nader for the Peace party of Oregon. Now that the race has been won and we will have Barack Obama in the White House on January 20th, what are we to do? Mr. Nader, that is why I’m writing to you today.

You have millions of supporters around the country. Far more than the number who had voted for you. We can assume based on the polls, that you would have gotten 1/3 of those votes if people had thought you could win. That’s roughly 50 million people who support you, Mr. Nader.

You have said yourself that we need to give President Obama a mandate, because otherwise the Military Industrial Complex will inevitably give him one. I completely agree with this statement and if we do not give him a mandate then he will just follow the Bush war machine. He will ruin Iraq, with Afghanistan to follow. He will support Israel occupation and will ignore the Palestinians. He will allow single payer health care to remain just Plan B on the Democrat’s agenda, ensuring the implementation one of the worst health care systems in the Western world. As it stands, he will ignore the will of the people on behalf of the corporate interests that paid for his monumental campaign.

Now is our time. Only we the people can make a difference now. Only we can make President Obama become what the whole world is hoping he will be. We must take to the streets and our voices must be heard. Only when our cries of justice penetrate the walls of the Obama White House, will this world see real change.

Mr. Nader, I’m writing to you in order to ask that you rally your supporters and organize a protest on the day of Obama’s inauguration. I’m writing to you, Mr. Nader, to ask that you reach out to the Obama supporters who worked so hard to get him where he is and ask them to march with you. He said it himself in his victory speech, “This victory alone is not the change we seek — it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.”

Unite everyone together and let us give President Obama a mandate that will change the country and the world.

Your loyal supporter,

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Finally for the first time Ralph Nader will be on a presidential debate. Although he is not debating John McCain or Barack Obama, he is still debating. Chuck Baldwin will be an excellent opponent. Ron Paul recommend that his supporters abandon the mainstream candidates and instead support a 3rd party, to which he recommended Baldwin of the Constitution party.  Tune in tonight live at 9pm EST to see them compete for the 3rd party vote. It will defiantly be more inspiring then those parallel interviews from McObama.

http://www.cspan.org/ has it live

Read Full Post »

Independent President candidate, Ralph Nader, wrote a letter today asking the debate commission if they would allow him to at least be in the audience and access the press and offer his responses to the questions that will be asked. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a corrupt and biased establishment that is owned and operated by the Democratic and Republican parties and has consistently raised the poll requirement used to qualify for a spot on the debate. Furthermore, the poll that the commission has used in the past, Gallup, doesn’t include Ralph Nader or any of the other third parties in their questions, instead they choose to generalize and just ask whether the person is going to vote for someone else.

What is the media’s logical argument for blacking out the third parties from any major coverage? Could it be that their motives are monetary? Could it be because the third parties candidates are publicly against corporations? If this is true then the public broadcasting would offer air time, but they don’t. Could it be that the public air waves are biased as well? I urge you all to ask yourselves these questions.

When we retire our opposition and accept the Democratic and Republican candidates, we are effectively destroying our democracy. These smaller voices that come from the third party candidates speak on behalf of the majority of Americans. They are asking for single payer health care, an end to the wars, getting the budget under control, and holding Wall street accountable. Yet, we don’t here anything from them. Yet our news doesn’t cover them. Yet they don’t win.

There is a good example behind the bias of American media it it goes by the name of Ron Paul. I recommend that you go to Google Trends and see the comparison between Internet searches for Ron Paul and his mainstream news coverage. The difference is outstanding. Had the news media covered Ron Paul equally to the demand of the public, then we could very well have Paul for the Republican nominee. Now that would be someone worth our vote.

Despite that fact the Ralph Nader isn’t going to win in 2008, I am convinced that what he is doing is for the betterment of our democracy. If things are ever going to get better, then we need to open the debates and allow these third parties to have a voice. The duopoly of government is the cancer of our society. As the third parties push harder and achieve more and more votes and get on more and more ballots, they are making it easier for a third party to one day be in the White House. Then and only then, my dear Obama supporters, will we really have change.

Read Full Post »

The second presidential debate only had 2 of the possible 6 candidates on the stage. The other 4 candidates that were missing were Ralph Nader – the Independent candidate, Bob Barr – the Libertarian candidate, Cynthia McKinney – the Green party, and Chuck Baldwin – The Constitution party.

There are four major differences between the major parties, Democrat and Republican, and the third parties listed above:
1. Single-Payer Health Care, like Canada
2. End all war and bringing all troops home, 6 month withdraw from Iraq
3. Cutting the national debt, 50% of all taxes goes straight to war funding
4. Cut down on Corporate Crime, Wall Street needs to be held accountable.

Here are the videos of Ralph Nader’s responses to the questions asked:
1.

2.

3.

Read Full Post »

Sure was a lot of room on that floor. We could of had the other 4 candidates on there. Too bad that the Commission is owned by the two parties that we did see. If you want to hear some serious answers to these questions, as opposed to the same phrases and the same finger pointing, then you can go to Nader’s page where at 11pm tonight he’ll be answering these questions. If you want to see a real debate then you can go here to 3rd Party Ticket and sign up.

Remember it was because of the third parties that controversial issues where accepted my major parties and enacted into law, such as woman and black suffrage. These four need our support and we need them and the issues that they bring to the table.

Read Full Post »

As expected the first presidential debate was deprived of content, meaning and effective moderation and full of biased rhetoric. Overall I’m convinced that the two senators where not even debating, let alone debating the topics that needed to be debated. If one observes the finer details, then it’s possible to see how both McCain and Obama avoided debating each other and avoided discussing key points that would have given the debate any significance. In this critique I want to cover some details that had a large impact on how the debate was conducted and I want to point out a particular instance where senator John McCain had neglected to raise a major issue to avoid actually debating.

A large part of the debate was focused on the financial crisis that is affecting Wall Street. It is clear to see that the failures of Wall Street were the result of a lack of oversight in the housing market. As Marx says, “if you give them enough rope they will eventually hang themselves with it.” This topic in the debate contained many issues where McCain had a chance to shine but when asked about the financial crisis on Wall Street John McCain outright avoided debating.

In 2005, John McCain along with many republicans proposed legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but it never passed because the democrats blocked it. The bill returned in 2007 only to be opposed by senator Obama and to die on the senate floor. Take a look at Obama’s recent and present economic advisers: Jim Johnson was the managing director of Lehman Brothers between 1985 and 1990, CEO of Fannie Mae 91-98, and now on the board of Goldman Sachs; Franklin Raines was the vice chairman of Fannie Mae 91-96 and CEO of Fannie Mae 99-04, who received a $25 million golden parachute when he left Fannie. As the second highest person of all the senators to be paid-off, Obama received 45 times more money in contributions from these Wall Street crooks than McCain had.  The republican candidate had many opportunities to expose Obama for his poor judgment. But they didn’t debate, instead they talked about earmarks for 15 minutes and ended up comparing their bracelets.

The language expressed by the two senators was in the wrong voice for a debate. If one observes, they were using proper nouns and rarely to almost never addressing one another. In wasn’t until 20 minutes into the debate that Obama began to refer to his opponent in the 2nd person. Although as the debate progressed he slipped back into the 3rd person, which seemed to be the only way he could address the republican senator. As Tim Daily had said “like a 6th grade drama teacher”, Jim Lehrer, the moderator, tried to get the two candidates to debate.  Despite Lehrer’s soft nudges, McCain failed to acknowledge the notion while Obama was coerced once or twice only to find his way back to the comfortable and safe 3rd person voice.

The very construction of the stage was designed in order to keep this sham from being a debate. The podium was topped with a desk whereby they could conceal and refer to notes. A podium without a desk, or at least an open one, would force them to use what they know and not refer to what they don’t, thus they would have debated their points instead of just listing them. The podiums were positioned pointing inward 20 degrees to ensure that the candidates look at the moderator and not at each other, hitherto distorting the face to face ambiance. McCain barely looked at Obama and instead just stared out into the black of the audience rarely acknowledging the senator from Illinois.  Not just the positioning and form were problems, but the quantity of podiums represented the biggest intended obstacle. We have 6 presidential candidates this year who are on enough state ballots to win but only two podiums to conduct a debate.

I cannot call this a debate without paring my index and middle fingers together and putting them in the air. They weren’t debating; they were giving speeches as though this were a press conference. My favorite part of the “debate” was when the candidates thanked the commission for hosting and having them on. As the presidential candidates of the Democrat and Republican parties, they effectively run the debate commission. That’s like the boss thanking his employees for allowing him to come to work and manage for the day.

This was a mockery of a debate. If it has one merit, it shows just how the Democrats and Republicans play the American public for fools. What these parties need to understand is that they are the fools, because we are aware of their game. The news media that regurgitates their sloppy dialog and one liners doesn’t represent us. It is only caricaturing our opinions with blunt crayons. We the people don’t care about lapel pins or lipstick; we can tell when responding to a problem that Sarah Palin is as Paul Krugman said more like “a freshman in college who hasn’t read the material and is failing to answer an essay question”; we the people know that these two parties aren’t worried about us – the homeowners and taxpayers – in this crisis, because they are putting the burden of their advisor’s and colleague’s poor choices on our backs and on the backs of our children. Instead what we the people care about is our future and our children’s future and what we the people know is that these aren’t going to be debates until the commission allows the 3rd parties to attend. When we called and wrote to the commission, to the sponsors of the commission, to the Democrats and Republicans who own the commission and demanded that the 3rd parties debate, we were speaking with one voice that reflected our cognition exclaiming “open the debates!”

In a debate there are winners and losers. And as the independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader had said about this the first of three presidential debates “Militarism won. Nuclear power won. The bloated military budget won. Corporate crime won. Bailing out Wall Street crooks won. Peace advocates lost. Workers lost. Tax Payers lost. Solar Energy lost.”

Read Full Post »

This is in response to the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE06O7lZuPo
Ralph Nader Interview by CSPAN

I recommend everyone to listen to what Ralph Nader has to say. His plans are more effective and progressive than any other candidate. When you look at the options available for such problems as the war in Iraq, Health Care, and the Israel/Palestine conflict, Ralph Nader has superior ideas. His plans begin with subjecting the corporations to the rule of law, demanding that they raise their standards, and removing their constitutional personhood, thus returning the power back to the American people.

On the war in Iraq, do you think that Iraq would be able to use its authority and establish an economy that could support its people if it didn’t have access to the oil in their country? Why are we occupying a territory and forcing its people to give us access to their natural resources? We should take the resources away from these corporations (Exxon, Shell, etc. Who by law have no allegiance to our country our any country) and place them back in the hands of the Iraqi people. Why do you think that there is so much violence in Iraq and furthermore why do you think Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq grows stronger with each new day, simply because we are stealing from these people. Watch this video and hear what Nader has to say about Iraq; he can have us out in 6 months.

On health care, why are we not arguing for a single payer system? Why after all these years are we now pushing for a universal health care system? We are starting to move to a universal health care system because the corporations are finding it more expensive to manufacture their products here in the US than in other countries due to the high price of health care. So now we have the possibility of getting health care because the corporations see it profitable to do so. So here we are arguing over a broken health care system that is built to make money and not to help the people and the idea of a single payer system is completely off the table. Listen to Nader, he is calling for a single payer system and he has a plan to pay for it.

Concerning the energy crisis and the high price of oil, which we would normally see these as two problems, the ladder can be seen as a solution to the former. The rest of the western world is using this time, where oil is the highest price it has ever been, to invest the surplus of money that is accruing into new energies. Why are we not doing that? As Nader says, we’d have a lot of solar energy if Exxon owned the sun. When you compare the governments of other western countries to our own, we find that they have more social intervention into the market. When you look at the housing crisis and the bailing out of these big corporations (i.e. Fannie Mac and so on) you see that we are naturally moving to a more socialized state, like Germany’s government for instance.

Barack Obama has, like most politicians, told us one thing and did another. Just look at the FISA bill. As a democratic candidate, Obama is the best choice and when you compare him to the republican candidate, McCain, he would definitely make the better president. But why should we settle for the best of the worst? Why should we settle for another corporate candidate, especially when we don’t have to. Let’s get organized. Let’s elect someone for real change, who is not apart of this two party system that has been destroying our democracy.

http://www.votenader.org

read more | digg story

Read Full Post »