DON'T VOTE:

"Mass Refusal."

"Refuse To Vote For President In 2004," by John Spritzler

VOTE FOR KERRY

"Kerry: No W. (& No Bill)," by David Corn.

Source: thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040802&s=corn

EXCERPTS

A friend of mine in Los Angeles reports listening to a radio station that caters to middle-class African-Americans and hearing repeatedly from hosts and callers that there's little difference between George W. Bush and John Kerry. "People keep saying they're both Skull and Bones guys," she says. "So why bother?"

It's a pity our political system doesn't produce a more diverse range of choices. It's also a pity that some voters don't discern the Texas-size gap between these two Yalies. And it is troubling that polls show Bush voters to be more committed to their man than Kerry voters are to theirs.... Yet it is important that Democrats and potential Kerry voters perceive him--and talk about him--as more than an Anybody-but-Bush placeholder.

That's not always easy... [Kerry] has voted consistently for abortion rights--earning a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood--but when asked about abortion he ruminated that he might consider appointing an antiabortion judge to a lower bench. His supporters shook their heads. His foes claimed it as evidence of his "flip-flopping" ways. So, a stalwart choice supporter found himself explaining a position that should need no explanation.

On the Iraq war, Kerry voted to grant Bush authority to attack but called on him to try all other options and create a truly multilateral coalition before launching an invasion. He did not support the war, as some detractors on the left charge, but he did enable it. That, too, has required explaining. Nowadays, he gets criticism from progressives for not presenting a bold plan for extricating us from Iraq.... [Yet] it ... is not unreasonable for him and his supporters to claim as key talking points that (a) Kerry would not have created this mess in the first place and (b) he is better equipped to deal with the problems Bush has spawned. This is not a bold argument, but it has the benefit of plausibility.

Even if the former war hero turned antiwar leader cannot offer an audacious peace plan, Kerry has other assets that should jazz up Democrats and progressives. As GOPers note ceaselessly, the National Journal rated him the most liberal member of the Senate. Shouldn't libs be overjoyed to have their number-one supporter as the nominee? Kerry has been a steady pal of environmentalists; he calls for an energy-independence initiative that would boost alternative energy. He advocates raising the minimum wage and spending hundreds of billions to expand healthcare coverage. (It's not universal health insurance, but it's a stab at the problem.) He fought against Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. He has championed arms control. He led the charge against Reagan's covert war in Central America and mounted a gutsy investigation exposing connections between the CIA-backed contra rebels and drug runners. With his probe of the crooked BCCI bank--a financial haven for terrorists, shady businessmen and spy services, including the CIA--he took on corruption that extended into his own party. He has endorsed full public financing of elections.

Kerry did support NAFTA, and he has proposed corporate tax cuts to spur investments. He once raised questions about the political costs of affirmative action (while still backing such programs). He's not a Wellstone Democrat.... [His] post-primary lurch to the center entails cooling down the populist rhetoric (which he borrowed from his Democratic rivals) and emphasizing his "values." He has done nothing as crass as when Clinton left the campaign trail in 1992 to return to Arkansas for the execution of a mentally disabled convict. Kerry, a former prosecutor, opposes capital punishment.

Sure, it would be better for Democrats if their man charged up the voters. But Democratic primary voters anointed a fellow who reassures more than inspires. ... [But]... asking Kerry to be bolder is like asking Bush to be smarter. The Democrats would likely crush Bush if Kerry exuded Clintonesque charisma and had people yapping at the water cooler about his great new ideas for creating high-wage jobs, strengthening the country's social fabric, making the United States safe and ending the war in Iraq. That's not going to happen. Still, Kerry has more to offer--in qualities and ideas--than many other prominent Democrats. If he doesn't convey that fully, it is up to others to do so. Back To Top

VOTE FOR KERRY

"The Lizard Strategy," by Ricardo Levins Morales .

Source: zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33&ItemID=5831

EXCERPTS

"Now we get to go out and lie to our members once again," a union staffer recently complained to me. She was referring to the 2004 presidential election, and her frustration is understandable. Like most of organized labor she, and her union, are convinced that the Bush administration must go, and that the only way to make that happen is to persuade their members, and millions of traditional non-voters, that Senator John Kerry represents their interests. This is a thankless and difficult task since, like the sister says, it's a lie.

It's also not very effective. What follows is a proposal for how radicals and progressives can have an impact on the 2004 elections in the short run, while keeping our eyes on long-term goals.

To take advantage of the opportunities offered by the presidential race we will have to view the political landscape with fresh eyes and overcome ingrained habits. We will need to intervene in the mainstream of U.S. politics, without lying to our members....

The lesser-of-two-evils approach seeks to stem the erosion of people's rights, resources, and the environment by supporting the candidate likely to cause the least damage. It also hopes that we can pressure a leader whom we helped elect to at least respond to our concerns in a way that a more openly hostile politician would not. Each of these strategies emphasizes one side of the present/future equation, often at the expense of the other.

Who Wins? Do We Care? Let's start by looking at the short-term side of the equation. Is it important that Bush be defeated? This is by no means an obvious question. President Bush has managed to shatter the credibility of the U.S. Empire. Along with it has gone the illusion of U.S. military superiority equals invincibility (and that in a uni-polar world!) This has had repercussions on many fronts, including a growing resistance on the part of small nations to the free-trade globalization juggernaut. His aggressiveness has unleashed an unprecedented global anti-war movement and undermined the recruitment ability of the U.S. military. For those of us who do not share the vision of a triumphal United States Empire, these are not negative achievements. On the other hand the Bush crowd is convinced that its mandate comes from God, and would take an election victory (however slim) as a green light to pursue its reckless ambitions. This has the potential to cause tremendous human and ecological devastation.

The Democrat, John Kerry, is a reactionary career politician with a history of accepting labor support while undermining our interests. He supported Clinton's draconian "Welfare Reform", has been a champion of corporate "Free Trade" treaties; and is committed to escalating the illegal war in Iraq (and dragging the United Nations deeper into it). He supported the repressive Patriot Act and the march to war. A Kerry presidency would work to rebuild the unity of the "international community" (a euphemism for an ugly consortium of neo-colonial nations)....

In this context, to speak in terms of lesser or greater evils is not clarifying. What we have are different mixes of dangers and opportunities. Bush could cause greater short-term damage and Kerry could engineer a more stable long-term system of plunder. This holds true across a whole range of issues from civil liberties to affirmative action to war to the environment. The Republicans drive an SUV and the Democrats drive a compact but they're going the same way. Clinton and Gore were able to stymie or roll back environmental protections (suffice to mention PCBs, toxic dumping in the oceans, pesticides in baby foods, dioxins in paper processing, oil rights in nature preserves, climate change and logging federal lands) because they were assumed to be environmentalists.

The most important reason for making the removal of Bush a priority has to do with our relationship to our sisters and brothers in struggle around the world. Public opinion polls across the planet show deep opposition to the direction of international developments, and identify U.S. policies as the driving force behind them. Many are watching our elections for a sign as to whether we support Bush's agenda. Why does this matter?...

If we appear to give our endorsement to the regime, we will seem to confirm the second world view and encourage the advocates of "holy war". The implications of this view can be seen in the rubble of the World Trade Center....

If Bush wins, the fact that Kerry is cut from similar cloth is not likely to survive the translation. If the Democrats and third parties together outpoll Bush and yet he wins by plurality, it will be the simple fact of his win that will be talked of in the markets of Karachi and the taxis of Cairo. The political choices we make (including, but not limited to voting) must always take into account our fellow subjects outside the walls....

If our short term goal is to remove Bush through the election then (barring the unforeseen) it will require Kerry's ascension. However this does not require joining the Democratic campaign or endorsing its illusions. Much effort is being put into progressive voter registration campaigns. These target the millions of potential voters who have remained outside of the electoral process until now. Many are young people, people of color, poor folk and recent immigrants. They are the people who have not viewed the ballot as greatly affecting the problems of concern to them. The Democratic Party chose Kerry because he was considered "electable." That is to say, that it would be difficult for the White House to attack him from the right. In selecting a colorless right wing candidate, they have chosen someone not likely to inspire the marginalized populations who could determine the outcome of the election. Even registering large numbers of potential voters is no guarantee that they will turn out on November 2. Kerry is facing a ruthless campaign operation that is capable of damaging his image considerably before the election. His reactionary politics and slippery stands will be particularly damaging with young people. They are the age group with the lowest voter turnout and are particularly sensitive to hypocrisy.

The strategy of mainstream labor and liberal groups consists of promoting the message "Kerry Good, Bush Bad!" This requires papering over how far to the right the Democratic Party has gone....

The following proposal is inspired by the Louisiana governor's race of 1991. That year the Republican nomination was won by David Duke, the former "Imperial Wizard" of the racist Ku Klux Klan. Duke's neo-fascist politics galvanized a grassroots opposition. Duke's opponent was the incumbent; a corrupt, scandal-ridden machine politician. Governor Edwin Edward's standing was so bad that it was not possible to make a positive case for him. The opposition chose instead to organize their campaign behind such slogans as "Vote for the Lizard, Not the Wizard," while bumper stickers reading "Vote for the Crook, It's Important," flew off the shelf. This permitted an ultimately successful campaign that did not stoop to selling a bill of goods to the rank and file voters. The message was that voting for the incumbent was a tactical choice that did not require promoting illusions about Edwards.

Adapting it to the different conditions of the Kerry-Bush race, what would be the implications of a Lizard Strategy? ...

It would give an activist framework to Bush opponents who are prepared to "hold their noses and vote."...

It would allow people to effectively oppose Bush while stating clearly their rejection of Kerry's opportunist politics....

A slogan such as "Elect the Flake, Evict the Snake"would express openly what many people feel....A Lizard campaign allows us to disengage completely from Kerry and his politics. Indeed it will elicit the open hostility of the Democratic leadership and its allies. If the emergence of a significant Lizard voting block...causes them to adjust their positions then so be it, but it is not the goal of the strategy....

The stakes in this campaign are high, although they do not fall along the lines we are used to discussing. No matter who is elected in the fall we must be prepared to confront him with relentless organizing. We know that we will be facing a President committed to imposing a puppet government on Iraq which can only be pursued by expanding a brutal and immoral occupation....

Much as we should avoid exaggerating the differences between the major parties, it also does not serve us to pretend that the outcome of the race doesn't matter. The Bush crowd has presented the world with an unabashed declaration of supremacy and the world will see this election as a referendum on that posture. Lacking a parliamentary system we can only say no by rejecting Bush at the polls.

At the same time we can honor our long term commitment to social change with a campaign of independent mobilization that summons the power of the disenfranchised to defeat Bush without sowing illusions about the current, stacked electoral system; and which opens the agenda to a significant reassessment of that system. We must refuse on principle--now and always --to lie to our people! To build real power in our communities we must face today's dangers with a commitment to honesty and respect for our people's intelligence. We must organize for a future not of more lessers and greater evils but of real hope and meaningful change. Back To Top

DON'T VOTE FOR KERRY

"Left Politics and Posturing in the Presidential RaceThe Deed or the Word," by Michael Hirsch .

Source: zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33&ItemID=5739

EXCERPTS

Voting is a drag. John Kerry will get my vote in the November elections, and I''ll give it with the same grudging, wintry discontent that I did in the last two presidential elections, when I backed Ralph Nader. In those races, I made statements. Now I want to beat Bush.

But that's not what this piece is about. It's not why a vote for Kerry is inevitable in a year when Bush is vulnerable. It's also not about renouncing my left-wing apostasy or embracing sobering lessons learned in Florida in 2000. Because Nader did not singularly cost Gore the election. It was Gore's inept campaign in Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada and states other than Florida that cost Democrats the election, too....

Beyond the facility of corporate Democrats to co-opt [social] movement leaders into precinct captains or the fecklessness of radicals to form lasting electoral and structural alternatives, a centrist Democrat is sadly our last best shot for ending the White House occupation because no social movements are strong enough to move the country left....

Making the case for Kerry is no slam-dunk. Problems with the Washington fixture are palpable; they can be lined up and bowled over like candlepins.* But even if Kerry is every bit the political bastard his left detractors say he is, he is ---- as FDR said of the senior Somoza ---- our bastard, at least until Nov. 3. Until then, the anti-Bush effort is well-worth building in its own right, if only as realpolitik. It needn''t be dressed up by pounding the iron necessity of beating Bush into a tin-plated virtue. Kerry supporters don''t have to say the ridiculous or the indefensible on his behalf....

If the pro-Kerry folk tend to be unreflective or even somnolent about how bad the situation is: that in 2004, amidst war, joblessness and poverty, we soldier on and hopefully elect another centrist Democrat, then the self-styled revolutionary left's sin is to act like lemmings, as though the sea were not instant death and Bush or Kerry do not matter. The candidate of one socialist groupuscule says he is running as "a voice for the international working class in the 2004 U.S. elections." Even bullfrogs don't puff themselves up that much. ...

Propagandizing for a third party is harmless enough, especially if you valorize consciousness raising and think elections are an opportunity to peddle your wares. But using the election as a chance to establish a franchise or operate a fishing expedition to hook hapless Greens will be criminal if it leads to a Bush suzerainty. Differences like these won't get resolved by talking or fighting from now until November. Instead of an arctic night of long knives, I'd rather see activists working their own sides of the street.

For those who know Bush must be defeated in November, it means stumping for Kerry. It means insisting that the social movements have a voice and face in the campaign and room to grow. It means running the ground war in media markets where the emphasis by the party pros will be on television saturation in the 17 battleground states. It means focusing on local races, where a few dedicated campaigners can make a difference in swinging control of state houses or Congress.

In New York City, for example, it means working in the long-shot Frank Barbaro campaign in Brooklyn-Staten Island against a hardcore right-winger who holds office in a district that boasts the highest union-household density in the nation. Or it could mean backing independent candidates with a chance of winning and who deserve to win, like Matt Gonzalez in San Francisco last year. Or at least building for the future where such local candidates can win.

After November, leftists are going to need each other, unmaimed. If nothing else, we can at least dial the thermostat down and get to work. Anything else is a real mug's game.

* Here's a short list [of problems with Kerry]: Kerry supported NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. He joined Bill Clinton in eviscerating public assistance. He hired Rand Beers, boon companion of Bush critic and one-note anti-terrorism Cassandra Richard Clarke and who worked for Bush's National Security Council until last year, as his foreign policy advisor. That might be a clever campaign move, but it's indicative of just how narrow gauged is American foreign policy debate. His stands on the drug war and the Israeli occupation will be only slightly more grounded than Bush''s. Nor will he be no less indebted to corporate interests: Kerry's $115 million raised by mid-May pales in comparison to Bush's $200 million money machine. Despite support from Howard Dean, Kerry cannot expect to tap into the breadth of small contributions from the aptly named Deaniacs, though almost a third of Kerry''s total has been raised through the Web.

His health care proposals are a fudge ---- health care transmutes into "health coverage" and back again, on all his literature. If a single-payer health plan emerges, it won''t come from a Kerry administration, but because employers resist paying huge health care costs and unions refuse cutbacks, not because Kerry will lead or the corporations will come to their senses and turn on the insurance industry. The only special interests he is likely to stand up to are unions, the poor, and the uninsured.

There also isn't a startling small amount of daylight between Kerry and Bush even on campaign issues. As the Washington Post recently noted. Both say they would preserve tax breaks while limiting non-military spending. Both prize halving the deficit. Both sell themselves as studiously pro-business and as backers of the Federal Reserve''s monetary policies. Cultural issues aside, both are tailoring their campaigns to the centrist voter in the battleground states. Back To Top

DON'T VOTE FOR KERRY

"Why I will not vote in 2004," by Carolyn Baker.

Source: onlinejournal.com/Commentary/050704Baker

EXCERPTS

The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful and virtuous.----Frederick Douglass

On Monday, the California Secretary of State nixed all electronic, touch-screen voting in the state and called for the criminal prosecution of the Diebold Company. For those who have been researching the questionable practices of Diebold and the potential manipulation of electronic voting (Black Box Voting and Wired News), California's decision appears to be a victory for American democracy but does not necessarily herald hope for clean elections in November, since overwhelming evidence suggests that conflicts of interest permeate the relationship between electronic voting machine companies throughout the nation and Republican politicians....

If there is an election in November 2004, and it is not absolutely certain there will be...I am not willing to vote unless I can have a paper receipt verifying my vote. This is not possible in the state where I reside.

"But why don't you vote absentee?" the reader may ask. Because in a similar manner, absentee ballots can be tampered with as they were in Florida in 2000....

While absentee voting may decrease the odds of tampering, voter fraud itself is not the principal issue for me. For most of my adult life, I have been faced with "choices" that are not choices when voting for political leaders. More egregiously than ever before in U.S. history, the candidates for president in 2004 are not choices but clones.... At this moment, however, our "choice" is between the cowboy and the cadaver----both marinated in Zionism and special interest skullduggery. The abhorrent reality that someone like Kerry could receive the Democratic Party's nomination blatantly demonstrates the depths of depravity to which it has sunk.

Consequently, I have come to abhor the mindless mantra "Anybody But Bush." While John Kerry is not a neoconservative nor a co-author of the Project For A New American Century (PNAC), he does espouse global economic domination by the United States. Moreover, on virtually every momentous issue, Kerry is an echo of neocon madness: He supports the War on Terror, including sending more troops to Iraq; he voted for the Iraq invasion; he voted for the USA PATRIOT Act; he states that "the cause of Israel must be the cause of America;" he opposes the democratically-elected opponent of U.S. imperialism in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez; he has no problem with the recent U.S. backed coup in Haiti nor the militarization of space. In 2000, after Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced a labeling law that would have given Americans the right to know whether the foods they ate contained genetically modified organisms, Kerry refused to support that bill. Why? Gee, could it be that Monsanto Corporation lawyers have contributed generously to his senatorial campaigns from 1997 through 2000? Kerry's national security advisor, Rand Beers, has been deeply involved in the toxic defoliation programs (compliments of Monsanto) in Colombia, one of the countries the Bush administration is planning to invade and occupy in its so-called War on Terrorism (translation: non-war on drugs and for oil.

While I could cite evidence ad nauseum of the Bush-Kerry clone syndrome, even that is not my ultimate reason for refusing to vote in 2004. Anybody But Bush (ABB) enthusiasts argue that although Kerry is an echo of the Bushonian cacophony, he will give us a pro-choice agenda and appoint more balanced judges to the Supreme Court, which Bush intends to pack with Scalia clones. That the ABB adherents could have such unswerving faith in their cosmetically-improved Bush carbon-copy to steer the ship of state in a decisively less fascistic direction, particularly in the face of all evidence to the contrary, is both astonishing and predictable. Make no mistake: John Kerry, like his Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton, is a corporate globalist. Neocon in denial? Imperialist more marketably packaged?

Yet even this is not the quintessential reason why I will not vote in November. Like the rest of my generation, I was assiduously schooled in the virtue of doing my civic duty----casting my ballot on election day or facing four years of guilt and shame attended by clichÉÉs about not complaining if I didn't vote....All of that has changed for me in 2000 and has continued to change throughout the past three years.

Suddenly, the reprehensible extent to which the voting process had become an atrociously rigged game jolted me from my teddy bear notions about free, fair, and valid elections in America. Sadly yet indisputably, I became no longer willing to play in a rigged game----no longer capable of espousing "lesser evilism." My vote, you see, is far too sacred to me. But worse, and this is my point, I now know that in America, we are not heading into fascism, not about to enter fascism, not on the verge of fascism----we are living under fascism. Today, it is incontrovertibly clear to me that my vote has as much meaning as the votes of Germans under Hitler, Russians under Stalin and Mexicans under seven decades of the PRI Party....

As an American, it is my divine right, to vote in a clean election with a paper record of my vote for a valid candidate who offers an authentic choice for leadership of my government. Therefore, were I to vote, I would disavow my commitment to the kind of America our founding fathers constructed, the kind of America for which men and women fought and died and marched and struggled since 1776. Hence, the most patriotic American act I can perform on November 4, 2004, is to stay as far away from the polls and inform as many other Americans as possible of the realities of the totalitarian state in which they reside.

Moreover, I have come to understand that if American citizens have any hope of transforming their government, they must not rely on voting every two, four, or six years at the polls, but rather vote every day with their time and money by refusing to consume media that is lying to them, refusing to patronize corporations that are enslaving them and refusing to participate in a phony electoral charade that drives their nation deeper into fascism. In other words, boycott the system in every manner humanly possible, and above all, do not collude in the lie that any part of it works on our behalf! ...

I refuse to live the lie called "democratic elections" in the United States in 2004 and thereby join, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, those who have "become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." If you are still considering voting for "the lesser evil," ask yourself exactly how much despotic government you still need, and why you need it. Back To Top

VOTE NADER

Ralph's Revolt: A Discussion with Greg Bates

(Greg Bates [GB] is the author of the new book, Ralph's Revolt: The Case for Joining Nader's Rebellion. Bates recently spoke with Joshua Frank [JF] about his upcoming book, the elections, and the future of progressive politics in America.)

Source: zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33&ItemID=5812

EXCERPTS

GB: The key myths about his run that I wanted to debunk are:

1. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

2. We should hold off on a third party run for now.

3. Nader is an egomaniac

4. We can reform the Democratic Party from within.

5. A Kerry presidency will be better.

6. Kerry had to move right.

7. Kerry will be more receptive to pressure from social movements than Bush is...

JF: Do you not see any substantive differences between John Kerry and Bush? Many progressives argue that if Kerry is elected, even if he is just 'Bush-lite', he will at least give us a little 'wiggle room' to push for genuine change, whereas with another four years of Bush we have no chance of that. In your book you don't seem to buy this argument. What are your reasons?...

GB: We fervently WANT to believe there are solid differences. Progressives and liberals don't want 4 more years of Bush; they want to believe they will get something better in Kerry. But it's best to drop how we want to see the situation in order to perceive it as accurately as possible.

[Kerry] advocated going into Iraq over WMDs -- in 1998. On that front, he beat Bush by several years and, crucially, was arguing the case BEFORE the pretext of the war on terror. Today he says, "I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the war on terror. I believe he's done too little." That tells me I can't hope Kerry will better on this critical issue....

If we are going to lose the election to Bush (a very real possibility independent of Nader), regaining the House and Senate are vital secondary goals. And having Nader out there could draw more voters to the polls (both those in favor and those opposed to him) who would then vote for Democrats in the House and Senate....

So what are the differences [between Bush and Kerry]? Answer: I don't really think they are knowable. Are they significant? Probably. How significant? I don't know and I don't think anyone can tell us because Kerry is moving right quickly.

Will those differences give us more wiggle room? That's essentially what Howard Zinn focuses on when he says "I don't have faith in Kerry changing, but with Kerry there is a possibility that a powerful social movement might change him. With Bush, no chance."

We would do well to ask, how powerful would that movement have to be to change him? On some issues like civil rights and other domestic ones, success might be relatively attainable. But on war? Consider what it took to protest the last Democratic president persecuting a war, Lyndon Johnson during Vietnam. Some activists burned themselves to death in an attempt to shake the foundations. Years of people protesting on the streets, etc. A crisis of democracy. And Johnson left rather than submit....

Many social movements... succeed by building up such intense force that the costs of continuing whatever the policy is becomes greater than the cost of giving in. With war, we will have to raise the cost very high through a social movement -- regardless of whether it is Bush or Kerry in office.

Perhaps because I suffer from looking through the same rose colored glasses, I too think there are differences between Bush and Kerry. I hope Kerry wins. But I want his leash as short as possible. We may have more wiggle room in a Kerry presidency if he can see we are building ever more serious electoral challenges with each cycle.

The problem with the strategy of elect him first and then pressure him is that he will view his electoral strategy of moving right as a success -- how else could he view it? And so he'll be set to move right again. In that scenario of a large Kerry victory, social movements will have a tougher time pressuring him than they will if he can also see a large group of his constituents defecting...

Kerry has made it completely clear over many years on many issues that he has zero receptivity to international law. What makes you think he'll be receptive to social movements?...

How can we get the Neocons out of office? Kerry could run a campaign like Nader's designed to infuse passion in voters and get out the vote to pick a candidate genuinely working for their interests and for justice. That's not Kerry. He is running against a president who, if re-elected, will have won with lower approval ratings this close to the election than any incumbent in history. If Kerry can't win a landslide in these conditions, we need to point the finger not at Nader, but at Kerry and the strategy of running to the right. The responsibility for the support Nader is getting is Kerry's. "The stakes are too high," argues the Naderfactor.com website opposed to Nader's bid. Most progressives agree. How is it, then, that Nader is polling so high even as his one time celebrity supporters have abandoned him or remained silent? The answer is it is the Kerry factor, not the Nader factor. Could it be that there are a few people who, in the midst of a war, want to vote against it?...

GB: I find it appalling that we have a situation where Democrats -- who represent the party of the people -- are desperately trying to cut off choice for voters while Republicans are trying to widen it. Fighting for ballot access is the right thing to do; it matters little what people's motivations are for doing it. So I support those Republicans, along with anyone else, who are working toward Nader's access.

The whole premise of the argument that Nader should disavow those on the right fighting for his ballot access is this: if voters get access, we can't trust them to make rational decisions. But the minute we decide what choices the voters should be allowed, we start working for the wrong side.

One person who heard this argument from me responded by saying, look, "the fascists are inside the gates; this is no time for philosophy." Putting aside the issue of whether Bush = fascist, it's aligned with George Bush's position. Replace the word "fascist" with the "terrorist" and it's his argument for curtailing democracy: We have to stop democracy because the terrorists are inside the gates. Progressives reject this argument when Bush makes it. I believe we should be consistent and reject it whenever anyone makes it.

I believe we have to strengthen democracy -- get dialog going among voters, widen their choices on the ballot, empower them by treating them as equal to ourselves, and build social movements....

Isn't 3rd party campaigning in swing states too dangerous? I believe candidates should run, and leave to the voters the decision of strategy. It's my choice, as a swing state voter, whether I vote Nader, Cobb, stay home, or vote Kerry. It's not up to Nader or any other candidate to choose for me. Those who suggest that Nader should throw all his support behind Kerry at the last minute, just don't want to argue with the voters, and seek to avoid doing so by asking Nader to make the choice. It's demeaning, as a swing state voter, to hear others imply by their advocacy for running in safe states only, that I shouldn't have the choice....

The choice between Kerry who helped kill 500,000 children in Iraq with his approval of sanctions, Bush who would like to if we just give him 4 more years, and Nader who wants a just foreign policy should be obvious....

JF: One last question: If Bush is re-elected because Nader threw the election to Kerry, how will you feel the morning after? Even if you claim Kerry lost it himself by not pandering to progressive voters, won't that stigma still damage third party efforts in the future?

GB: I don't think we should act solely based on how people might perceive the act. In this case, I wouldn't worry about stigmatizing third party efforts, and just do what seems right: running an antiwar candidate in the middle of a war seems unobjectionable to me.

Second, if it seems as if Nader voters in swing states threw the vote, we'd have to examine that carefully. Would they have voted for Kerry in the absence of Nader? Let's suppose that too is true. Then there is the question of what is the political landscape. If Repubs still control both houses and the presidency, that would be bad.

But even in that outcome, we should assess the reasons instead of heaping blame on Nader. Was it voters just couldn't stomach Kerry? Did they miscalculate and think they wouldn't throw the election? Either is a strong message to the Democrats: turn around! My guess is that such an outcome would signal the growth of disenfranchised progressives who aren't willing to cooperate with the lesser evil strategy no matter how great the greater evil is. Democrats -- and progressives -- need to then ask, how should we respond to this constituency? Blaming them or who they vote for will likely prove an ineffective response.

In any case, I will feel that voters got to make their choice. If this becomes the start of permanent serious third party runs, it will mean that the Democrats will have to get used to not being the only game in town. That could have a very positive long-term outcome, possibly waking them up in time to change strategies for the midterm elections in 2006.... Back To Top

VOTE FOR NADER

"A letter to the Black Caucus from a Black woman living in SouthCentral"by Donna J. Warren .

(Donna J. Warren is the Green Party candidate for lieutenant governor of California in 2002. She sued the CIA and the Department of Justice in 1998 for their complicity in the destruction of South Central by crack cocaine."

Source: sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/07/1699520.php

"We respect your right to run, Mr. Nader. Withdraw." - Elijah Cummings, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus of the United States House of Representatives

To Rep. Cummings and members of the Black Caucus,

You demanded independent candidates Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo withdraw from the presidential race in favor of NAFTA approving, Iraq invading, Afghanistan bombing, Sudanese pharmaceutical plant bombing, right-wing Israeli prime minister and murderer Ariel Sharon supporting, impeachment of George W. Bush for the forced removal of democratically elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide refusing, and mandatory minimum sentencing supporting - John Kerry.

Kerry's contempt for human rights, international law, arms control and the United Nations is unforgivable.

"Anyone but Bush" was your cry when Nader and Camejo visited your offices in late June. But let's be honest - when Bush delivered lie after lie after lie during his state of the union addresses, it was the Democrats who stood and clapped. The Democrats made the monster George Bush!

You don't challenge the Democrats and Republicans in their abdication of our communities, but you challenge Nader and Camejo for fighting for our communities. During your meeting, you condemned Nader for choosing Camejo, who speaks Spanish fluently, because you fear Malcolm X's friend will take away your brown votes!

Peter Camejo changed the minds and hearts of Californians to oppose California's horrendous Three Strikes law during his campaign for governor. Three Strikes imprisons African Americans 12 to 1 for every white person for the same non-violent crime.

What have you done for us?

Does it matter to you that your constituents are hurt by redlining, lead-based paint poisoning, predatory lending, pay day loan rackets, and dirty meat? It matters to Ralph Nader.

Does it matter to you that student Nader challenged Harvard University when they published the lie that Blacks are inferior to whites? It matters to me.

Does it matter to you that only Nader campaigned in Ward 8 of the District of Columbia, exposing that 65,000 people live without a single supermarket, yet the District of Columbia has had Black mayors and a Black city council for the last 35 years? It matters to your constituents.

What are you afraid of? That Nader and Camejo may "mess up your little party" because they advocate for Black Americans and you don't.

"Anyone but Bush" is your mantra. But even if Bush self-destructs, how can you support John Kerry without demanding a mandate? Corporate interests pull the Democrats 24 hours a day. Without a mandate to pull John Kerry in a progressive direction, there's no way you can demand equity. You told Ralph Nader you wanted him out of the race so Bush can't appoint another right-winger to the Supreme Court, but let's look at the record.

Kerry promises to appoint anti-abortion judges while professing to protect a woman's right to choose.

The Senate Democrats confirmed right-wing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia 98-0. Not one Democratic senator, including Gore, opposed Scalia.

The Democrats could have blocked right-wing Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas' confirmation - they were in control of the Senate - but 11 Democrats moved across the line to confirm Thomas 52-48 while Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell sat in his office twirling his thumbs.

You don't stop anything that hurts us!

You could have filibustered the tax cut for the wealthy, but you didn't.

You could have demanded gas efficient car engines, but instead you sanctioned the SUV and gave the auto companies an eight-year holiday without requiring better gas efficiency.

You could have opposed genetically engineering foods, the petroleum industry, and the WTO, but you didn't.

You could have opposed the federal crime bill which imprisons drug addicts for the drugs our government allowed to flow into the inner cities, but you didn't.

You could have opposed the "leave no child behind high stake multiple testing fraud," but instead you chose to sacrifice our children.

You could have said "no" to the Patriot Act, but you didn't.

You don't represent me!

In 2000, Congressman Julian Dixon sold me out like a $2 dollar whore when, as ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, he announced the CIA was not complicit in the destruction of the inner cities by crack cocaine. I'm tired of being sold out like a $2 dollar whore by Black people living the good life as my representative in our nation's capitol.

Thomas Paine said in the 1700s: "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo are voices taking on the trouble of our day so that we and future generations may have peace.

Get off your knees and demand the Democrats stop sabotaging the Nader-Camejo Campaign. Demand Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo be included in the debates. Don't go down like a punk. Remember the ancestors and stand tall! Sincerely,

Donna J. Warren, a constituent. Back To Top

DON'T VOTE FOR NADER

"About The Nader Factor"

Source: thenaderfactor.com

The Nader Factor is dedicated to building a dynamic grassroots community of former Nader voters, Nader supporters, progressive Democrats and others who are uniting to change the destructive White House policies.

The stakes are extraordinarily high. As former Kucinich aide Jeff Cohen said, ""it''s not about Coke vs. Pepsi."" There are real, fundamental differences between Democratic policies and Republican policies. George Bush and his radical right wing agenda are destroying our country.

We believe the Democratic Party needs moderates, independents, Dean Democrats, Clark Democratsand most importantly, a new wing - Nader Democrats.

Mission:

To be honest about the impact Nader will have. We'll keep folks up to date on polls and other key news and developments about the Nader factor. And, we'll talk about the real, fundamental and stark differences between the Democrats and Republicans.

To harness that power. We are going to work hard to reach-out, to change minds, to create a real interactive community where a new wing of the Democratic party - Nader Democrats - can help change the direction of this country and the policies of our party. Whether its television ads, blogs, or carrier pigeons -- we will use any means to create this new movement and force for change.

And channel it. Let there be no doubt, in the end, this group has one goal -- to bring progressive change to America.

Our Open Letter...

To Concerned Progressives:

In 2004, the stakes are high. Progressives, liberals, and all Democrats must stand together against the dangerous, extremist policies of the Bush Administration. All of the issues we care about -- a clean environment, a sensible foreign policy, fair trade practices, corporate responsibility and civil liberties -- will continue to be undermined if we are divided. Ralph Nader and his many supporters can make the difference in the fight to change our country...but only if we fight together.

And as we all now know, the Bush Administration has led to the destruction of the environment, the disregarding of international agreements, a war based on deceptions, a tax-policy that has caused record deficits and an assault on the rights of women, minorities, gays and lesbians. Democrats and Progressives need to come together now to fight for the issues we care about. Indeed, George Bush and Karl Rove are dreaming of a divided opposition.

I am writing to ask you to become involved in a new, groundbreaking political organization designed to reach out to past Nader voters and progressive Americans in opposition to George Bush's radical extremist agenda. Through the website www.TheNaderFactor.com, we are reaching out to former Nader supporters, progressive activists, and concerned Democrats to help with this important effort.

The goal of www.TheNaderFactor.com is to build a dynamic grassroots community of former Nader voters, Nader supporters, progressive Democrats and others who are want to unite to change destructive White House policies. We will 1) create an online community to make the voice of progressives heard by the Democrats 2) raise funds for TV and Radio ads in targeted states and 3) work to unite the opposition to George Bush's right wing agenda. The simple fact is this: if Democrats and Nader Progressives are dividedthe issues we mutually care about will suffer.

David Jones, John Hlinko, Chris Kofinis and Karl Frisch and I have launched this effort. Karl and I worked on Governor Howard Dean''s historic run for the Presidency. John and Chris started the DraftWesleyClark movement and David has led finance efforts for Congressmen Dick Gephardt and Charlie Rangel, Senators Tom Harkin, President Clinton, and Vice President Gore.

Go to www.TheNaderFactor.com today and join the movement to unite the opposition to George Bush''s destructive agenda.

Sincerely,

Tricia Enright
President. Back To Top

DON'T VOTE FOR NADER

"Nader a point of contention Parties debate his participation," by Brendan Farrington.

Source: sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/9066484.htm

Ralph Nader could make the difference in Florida again this year - if he gets on the ballot.

It's clear Democrats don't want him there as John Kerry tries to defeat President Bush in a state that could go either way. Now Republicans are launching political attacks on Democrats for their desire to keep Nader from being a factor.

When Nader first got in the race in February, Florida Democratic Party Chairman Scott Maddox said he would be watching carefully Nader's efforts to get on the ballot and mount a challenge if he doesn't precisely follow Florida law.

After reiterating those thoughts this week, his counterpoint at the Republican Party of Florida issued a press release titled "Let Ralph Run!"

"In their desperation, the Democrats want to limit the choices of Florida voters in the November election and, ironically, disenfranchise the very voters that they are unsuccessfully attempting to win over," state Republican Chairwoman Carole Jean Jordan said in the release.

Maddox fired back Thursday, saying Republicans only defend election laws when it benefits them.

"We should not be surprised that once again the Republican Party is advocating not adhering to our election laws," Maddox said."As long as (Nader) follows the law, then we won't quarrel with his right to be on the ballot, but we are going to require that he dots his i's and crosses his t's and follows the law, and I don't think that's unreasonable."

Jordan said it's not that Republicans want Nader on the ballot, but rather the matter should be handled by Florida's Division of Elections and not political parties.

"That's their job and I think they do it extremely well," Jordan said Thursday, adding that Democrats "should spend their resources propping up their abysmal, flip-flopping candidate."

A recent poll of likely Florida voters showed Bush and Kerry had the backing of 43 percent apiece in a three-way matchup with Nader, who had the support of 5 percent. Without the consumer advocate on the ballot, Kerry had 46 percent and Bush 44 percent.

Maddox said point-blank he doesn't want Nader on the ballot.

"Of course not. Ralph Nader is going to act simply as a spoiler, and he does not have a legitimate shot at winning the presidency," Maddox said.

A Nader spokesman didn't immediately return calls. Back To Top

DON'T VOTE/

"Mass Refusal"

Source: massrefusal.org; newdemocracyworld.org

Our government sent 160,000 troops to invade and occupy Iraq in a war based on lies. The Democratic Party and the media have been fully complicit in this criminal aggression. Meanwhile the government makes war on working-class Americans. It gives tax cuts to the wealthy, attacks pensions and health care, and ships jobs overseas.

This war exposes the huge chasm between our system and real democracy. In a real democracy, people would be truthfully informed, not systematically lied to, by their government. We would be encouraged to debate peace and war fully. Our young people would not be sent to murder other innocent people in the name of "liberating" them.

We live in a fake democracy, a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

Now the rulers are using the 2004 presidential campaign to keep us from seriously questioning the system from which have sprung this and countless other wars and social wrongs, pretending that electing Dean or Kerry or Kucinich will change society. The elections are designed to create an illusion of democracy to prevent real democracy from emerging.

Politicians are front-men for the system. To challenge the system we need to take away the system's lifeblood: the illusion of democracy. We need to refute the lie that our government represents us. Therefore we call for Mass Refusal to Vote in the 2004 presidential elections.

LOOK TO THE PEOPLE

We the people are constantly told to look to politicians and officials as the force for change. We are encouraged to be passive consumers, not informed actors shaping society. But to make real change, we must look to ourselves and each other as the source of political power.

In a movement for Mass Refusal to Vote and real democracy, we can find in ourselves and friends and communities the power to move mountains and the vision for a better world.

TAKE THE PLEDGE

Because we live in a fake democracy run by war criminals and servants of giant corporations;

Because our government attacks the values and livelihood of ordinary people; Because the Republicans and Democrats collaborated to bring about a war of aggression;

Because the elections provide only the illusion of democracy;

Because democratic change will only come about through a mobilized people;

I agree not to vote in the 2004 presidential election and work instead for real democracy. Back To Top