Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Money vs. People - THE MYSTERY OF THE 2004 ELECTIONS
If twenty million
citizens voted for Nader it would be the beginning of the end of the
two-party system. The Democrats would enter into a crisis, the
ability of money to control people would begin to crack and the
possibility of a democracy where citizens could vote for what they
believe would be born. The Democrats are determined, not to beat
Bush but to stop Nader, to protect the two party pro-corporate rule
that America lives under.
citizens voted for Nader it would be the beginning of the end of the
two-party system. The Democrats would enter into a crisis, the
ability of money to control people would begin to crack and the
possibility of a democracy where citizens could vote for what they
believe would be born. The Democrats are determined, not to beat
Bush but to stop Nader, to protect the two party pro-corporate rule
that America lives under.
Money vs. People
THE MYSTERY OF THE 2004 ELECTIONS
By Peter Miguel Camejo, July 29, 2004
There is a mystery to the 2004 presidential election; a silence has
fallen on America regarding a glaring contradiction. As we enter the
second half of 2004, there is massive popular opposition to the war
in Iraq and to the USA PATRIOT Act -- possibly a majority of
Americans. Yet these same people are about to vote in overwhelming
numbers for John Kerry for President.
But John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, gave President
Bush 18 standing ovations in January, voted for the war, say the war
was right, insist on continuing the occupation of Iraq against it
peoples desires, want to increase the number of troops and Nations
occupying Iraq, voted for "unconditional support to Bush" for his
conduct of the war, and backed Bush by voting against the US
Constitution for the US Patriot Act.
The only explanation for tens of millions voting against their heart
felt opinions is the lack of free elections in America. There are no
runoff elections. Without runoffs people are trapped. They fear
expressing their true opinions. If they vote for what they are for
they are told they will only elect Bush. They must learn to vote
against themselves, to accept the con game of a two-party system.
People are taught not to vote FOR what they believe but AGAINST an
individual.
An unpopular policy once identified with an individual can be
continued by replacing the individual, keeping the policy with
modifications. In replacing Bush, Kerry pledges to more effectively
forward the same policy of imperial domination.
If run off elections existed tens of millions would vote against
both Bush and Kerry and for peace. Once the myth of invulnerability
of the two-party system is broken the dam against democracy and free
elections will break. Already 25% of Americans are no longer
registered Democratic or Republican, they seek alternatives.
The Democrats' fear of Ralph Nader is rooted in the programmatic
conflict between their Party's stance and their supporters. This is
the real story of the 2004 elections.
This mystery is never written about in the media - - it is America's
dark secret.
The 2000 presidential election was stolen when some 60,000 people,
primarily African Americans, had their right to vote illegally
revoked in Florida. The film, Fahrenheit 911, opens showing one
African American Congressperson after another asking for an
investigation. But their cry for justice was squashed because not
one Senator, not one Democrat, not Paul Wellstone, Barbara Boxer,
Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or John Edwards would defend democracy,
stand up for free elections.
Three and a half years later the Democratic Party has not lifted a
finger to establish free elections in America. Not in a single State
have they called for runoffs so Florida could never happen again.
They could not make it clearer, the Democratic Party prefers that
Republicans win elections, even without majority support, rather
than allow free elections where a third party or an independent
candidate could attract tens of millions from their base. Their
answer is simple: Ralph Nader must not run, must not be an
alternative.
If free elections were held with a runoff system like in most
civilized nations, if proportional representation existed where if a
point of view receives 20% of the vote its supporters would receive
20% representation, then every vote would count, and the Democratic
Party as we know it today would no longer exist. The one hundred
million people who never vote would have a reason to vote. New
parties would appear and a representative democracy would begin to
blossom in America.
Ralph Nader has created a small hole in the dam. The danger is real.
The Democrats are on an all out effort to attack the Nader/Camejo
campaign because if voters begin to vote for what they want the
entire electoral system would begin to unravel. If twenty million
citizens voted for Nader it would be the beginning of the end of the
two-party system. The Democrats would enter into a crisis, the
ability of money to control people would begin to crack and the
possibility of a democracy where citizens could vote for what they
believe would be born. The Democrats are determined, not to beat
Bush but to stop Nader, to protect the two party pro-corporate rule
that America lives under.
That is what is behind all the talk of the miniscule funding by
Republican citizens of Nader/Camejo. It is part of a relentless
attack against free elections and the first amendment of the bill of
rights.
This is why the Democrats have organized a nation wide "hate Nader"
campaign. They seek to obfuscate the issues. They seek to prevent
the right of citizens to vote for Nader by preventing Nader even his
right to be on the ballot. State by state thousands of citizens sign
petitions to place Nader on the ballot; state by state the Democrats
harass, seek technicalities to challenge the signatures, and try to
prevent allowing the people a choice that is pro-peace.
The attack on Nader by the San Francisco Chronicle with a banner
front page article claiming Republicans are funding Nader is just
one part of an on-going campaign. In spite of the relentless attacks
against Nader the polls continue to show ten million people behind
Nader/Camejo.
Wealthy Democrats and Republicans both cross finance their
campaigns. It is standard practice for corporations to donate to
both. Republicans donate millions to the Democrats. The very
corporations that Democrats supposedly oppose, Enron, Halliburton,
and Exxon, for example, all give funds to Kerry/Edwards.
Kerry/Edwards have no plans to return a penny of their Republican or
corporate backing.
These corporate/ lobbyist funds are not really contributions. They
are investments or bribes with an expected return of access and
policy, precisely like the Kerry/Edwards call for lower taxes on
corporations. This kind of contribution dominates the financing of
Bush and Kerry as well as most major party candidates for Congress
and Senate.
Corporations once paid 33% of the taxes received by the federal
government. Now they pay under 8%, yet Kerry/Edwards are promising
to lower their taxes further in spite of the half trillion federal
deficit per year and the increasingly regressive taxes on working
people.
Against this domination of money over people stand Ralph Nader and
the Nader/Camejo campaign.
The Nader/Camejo campaign is seeking votes from all citizens,
Democrats, Independents, Republicans, Greens and Libertarians.
Just as we seek their votes we ask all of them to help fund our
campaign that opposes the war in Iraq, the US Patriot Act, and
defends the health and well being of our working people.
We especially ask for donations for the right to be on the ballot
and for free elections in the United States, elections that respect
the will of the voters, that favor runoffs (instant run off voting)
and proportional representation.
Most working people never give funds to any candidate. Those who do
occasionally give to a candidate have no anticipation of personal
financial gain. It is that kind of donor that represents the
overwhelming majority of contributions to Nader/Camejo. The bulk of
our contributions are in amounts below 100 dollars per person.
The Nader/Camejo campaign does not accept funds from Exxon, Enron or
Halliburton as Kerry/Edwards do. We do not accept funding from
corporations!
We ask that Kerry/Edwards stop their hypocritical campaign about the
miniscule funding we have received from citizens registered
Republican. We ask they stop their campaign against the American
voters seeking to deny them a choice at the ballot box by allowing
ballot access and an opportunity for voters who support Nader/Camejo
to vote for them.
We, like all other candidates, do not, can not and will not give
donors lie detectors to ascertain their objectives in funding our
campaign.
We have proposed a simple solution to the funding issue. Establish
public funding of all campaigns to create fairness and end
corruption. Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney oppose public funding.
The choice is clear. Continue a corrupt electoral system that closes
choices, forces citizens to vote against their conscious and allows
money to control people -- or open up the electoral system, defend
civil liberties and establish free elections.
http://greensfornader.net/archives/2004/07/money_vs_people.html#more
THE MYSTERY OF THE 2004 ELECTIONS
By Peter Miguel Camejo, July 29, 2004
There is a mystery to the 2004 presidential election; a silence has
fallen on America regarding a glaring contradiction. As we enter the
second half of 2004, there is massive popular opposition to the war
in Iraq and to the USA PATRIOT Act -- possibly a majority of
Americans. Yet these same people are about to vote in overwhelming
numbers for John Kerry for President.
But John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, gave President
Bush 18 standing ovations in January, voted for the war, say the war
was right, insist on continuing the occupation of Iraq against it
peoples desires, want to increase the number of troops and Nations
occupying Iraq, voted for "unconditional support to Bush" for his
conduct of the war, and backed Bush by voting against the US
Constitution for the US Patriot Act.
The only explanation for tens of millions voting against their heart
felt opinions is the lack of free elections in America. There are no
runoff elections. Without runoffs people are trapped. They fear
expressing their true opinions. If they vote for what they are for
they are told they will only elect Bush. They must learn to vote
against themselves, to accept the con game of a two-party system.
People are taught not to vote FOR what they believe but AGAINST an
individual.
An unpopular policy once identified with an individual can be
continued by replacing the individual, keeping the policy with
modifications. In replacing Bush, Kerry pledges to more effectively
forward the same policy of imperial domination.
If run off elections existed tens of millions would vote against
both Bush and Kerry and for peace. Once the myth of invulnerability
of the two-party system is broken the dam against democracy and free
elections will break. Already 25% of Americans are no longer
registered Democratic or Republican, they seek alternatives.
The Democrats' fear of Ralph Nader is rooted in the programmatic
conflict between their Party's stance and their supporters. This is
the real story of the 2004 elections.
This mystery is never written about in the media - - it is America's
dark secret.
The 2000 presidential election was stolen when some 60,000 people,
primarily African Americans, had their right to vote illegally
revoked in Florida. The film, Fahrenheit 911, opens showing one
African American Congressperson after another asking for an
investigation. But their cry for justice was squashed because not
one Senator, not one Democrat, not Paul Wellstone, Barbara Boxer,
Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or John Edwards would defend democracy,
stand up for free elections.
Three and a half years later the Democratic Party has not lifted a
finger to establish free elections in America. Not in a single State
have they called for runoffs so Florida could never happen again.
They could not make it clearer, the Democratic Party prefers that
Republicans win elections, even without majority support, rather
than allow free elections where a third party or an independent
candidate could attract tens of millions from their base. Their
answer is simple: Ralph Nader must not run, must not be an
alternative.
If free elections were held with a runoff system like in most
civilized nations, if proportional representation existed where if a
point of view receives 20% of the vote its supporters would receive
20% representation, then every vote would count, and the Democratic
Party as we know it today would no longer exist. The one hundred
million people who never vote would have a reason to vote. New
parties would appear and a representative democracy would begin to
blossom in America.
Ralph Nader has created a small hole in the dam. The danger is real.
The Democrats are on an all out effort to attack the Nader/Camejo
campaign because if voters begin to vote for what they want the
entire electoral system would begin to unravel. If twenty million
citizens voted for Nader it would be the beginning of the end of the
two-party system. The Democrats would enter into a crisis, the
ability of money to control people would begin to crack and the
possibility of a democracy where citizens could vote for what they
believe would be born. The Democrats are determined, not to beat
Bush but to stop Nader, to protect the two party pro-corporate rule
that America lives under.
That is what is behind all the talk of the miniscule funding by
Republican citizens of Nader/Camejo. It is part of a relentless
attack against free elections and the first amendment of the bill of
rights.
This is why the Democrats have organized a nation wide "hate Nader"
campaign. They seek to obfuscate the issues. They seek to prevent
the right of citizens to vote for Nader by preventing Nader even his
right to be on the ballot. State by state thousands of citizens sign
petitions to place Nader on the ballot; state by state the Democrats
harass, seek technicalities to challenge the signatures, and try to
prevent allowing the people a choice that is pro-peace.
The attack on Nader by the San Francisco Chronicle with a banner
front page article claiming Republicans are funding Nader is just
one part of an on-going campaign. In spite of the relentless attacks
against Nader the polls continue to show ten million people behind
Nader/Camejo.
Wealthy Democrats and Republicans both cross finance their
campaigns. It is standard practice for corporations to donate to
both. Republicans donate millions to the Democrats. The very
corporations that Democrats supposedly oppose, Enron, Halliburton,
and Exxon, for example, all give funds to Kerry/Edwards.
Kerry/Edwards have no plans to return a penny of their Republican or
corporate backing.
These corporate/ lobbyist funds are not really contributions. They
are investments or bribes with an expected return of access and
policy, precisely like the Kerry/Edwards call for lower taxes on
corporations. This kind of contribution dominates the financing of
Bush and Kerry as well as most major party candidates for Congress
and Senate.
Corporations once paid 33% of the taxes received by the federal
government. Now they pay under 8%, yet Kerry/Edwards are promising
to lower their taxes further in spite of the half trillion federal
deficit per year and the increasingly regressive taxes on working
people.
Against this domination of money over people stand Ralph Nader and
the Nader/Camejo campaign.
The Nader/Camejo campaign is seeking votes from all citizens,
Democrats, Independents, Republicans, Greens and Libertarians.
Just as we seek their votes we ask all of them to help fund our
campaign that opposes the war in Iraq, the US Patriot Act, and
defends the health and well being of our working people.
We especially ask for donations for the right to be on the ballot
and for free elections in the United States, elections that respect
the will of the voters, that favor runoffs (instant run off voting)
and proportional representation.
Most working people never give funds to any candidate. Those who do
occasionally give to a candidate have no anticipation of personal
financial gain. It is that kind of donor that represents the
overwhelming majority of contributions to Nader/Camejo. The bulk of
our contributions are in amounts below 100 dollars per person.
The Nader/Camejo campaign does not accept funds from Exxon, Enron or
Halliburton as Kerry/Edwards do. We do not accept funding from
corporations!
We ask that Kerry/Edwards stop their hypocritical campaign about the
miniscule funding we have received from citizens registered
Republican. We ask they stop their campaign against the American
voters seeking to deny them a choice at the ballot box by allowing
ballot access and an opportunity for voters who support Nader/Camejo
to vote for them.
We, like all other candidates, do not, can not and will not give
donors lie detectors to ascertain their objectives in funding our
campaign.
We have proposed a simple solution to the funding issue. Establish
public funding of all campaigns to create fairness and end
corruption. Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney oppose public funding.
The choice is clear. Continue a corrupt electoral system that closes
choices, forces citizens to vote against their conscious and allows
money to control people -- or open up the electoral system, defend
civil liberties and establish free elections.
http://greensfornader.net/archives/2004/07/money_vs_people.html#more
For more information:
http://If twenty million
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$170.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Peter Camejo is absolutely right that most of the people who vote for Kerry will be very disappointed if he does not at least quickly withdraw substantial numbers of our troops from Iraq, roll back or allow to expire the worst parts of the so-called PATRIOT Act, and substantially alter the spending priorities of the federal government. It will be very frustrating for us all if the Democratic Party machine does not substantially change their tune after winning the reins of power.
But I am very afraid that Nader and Camejo are making a great strategic blunder. If 20 million people were to cast their votes for Nader/Camejo in November and Bush were to win, then all of the righteous fury the electorate felt would be directed at Nader/Camejo (and by association the Green Party)--whether Nader and Camejo objectively deserve to be blamed or not.
And I have a very hard time believing that Mr. Camejo honestly thinks that four more years of the Bush regime would not be much worse than a Kerry administration. Even if Kerry would fail to withdraw our troops from Iraq, fail to rescind or revoke any part of the so-called PATRIOT Act, fail to roll back any of the tax cuts for those making over $200,000 per year as promised, fail to substantially restore any of the funding cut or being cut from social programs, fail to curtail one cent of defense spending, fail to even slightly crack down on abuse of military prisoners, and fail to appoint an Attorney General even slightly better than Mr. John Ashcroft; I do not think Mr. Camejo honestly believes that Kerry will be just as likely as Mr. Bush to pass PATRIOT II, further cut social spending and raise defense spending, further cut taxes for the very wealthy, and lauch additional illegal invasions of sovereign nations in the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America. If he does believe that, then he is in a very small minority.
So what choice do we all have? I'm so glad you asked. Clearly there is only one alternative, and it's a very bitter pill: withdraw from the 2004 ballots, at least in Pennsylvania, Florida, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Michigan, and any other state which could go either way. Better yet, withdraw entirely, let the Democratic Party give their undivided attention to the competition on the "Right" from now until November 3, and focus Green Party and independent energy and money on Congressional, state, and local candidates. By all means, make it abundantly clear that you remain highly skeptical of the Kerry/Edwards ticket's independence from corporate interests and their determination to substantially address all the other vital planks of your platform, but let them have the rope to hang themselves with anyway, and live to fight another day. This is what is known as a strategic withdrawal.
If Mr. Camejo stated suspicion is entirely correct, then the electorate will quickly see that the new administration is indeed no better than the old one, and will be finally and fully disillusioned with the current two party system. The 2008 election would then be all about which third party(s) can seize the reins and blaze a new trail. I don't believe this is a scenario he is trying to avoid.
A more cynical observer might therefore suspect that what Messrs. Nader and Camejo are really worried about is that Kerry will not be as intolerable to the average American voter as they claim to believe. Either that, or they have not really thought these scenarios through. Or, worst of all, that they are merely "playing politics", in the pejorative sense of the phrase--simply angling for whatever compromises and concessions they can wrangle from the Democratic Party before finally agreeing to declare a victory of sorts and get on board. And the typical American voter is getting more and more cynical every day.
Fortunately it's still summer and most voters are still not paying very much attention, so the damage thus far has been minimal. But as August fades into September and the race heats up, the "far" Left will begin to pay an increasingly painful price for its apparent intransigence.
Let's not let that happen. Let's not give the media and the water cooler pundits such a golden opportunity to lambaste the liberals for (allegedly) being either incredibly selfish, unbelievably myopic, or shamelessly obstructionist. Let's not give the Democrats a scapegoat if they lose or an appearance of validation if they win. Let's not obscure the complete domination of our political system by the Republicrats. Let us instead fight smart, show patience, and keep our focus on the war rather than just the latest battle. For it remains as true today as it has ever been: discretion is the better part of valor.