[Marxism] Nader, McKinney, etc.

Linda Jansen jansen.l12 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 4 22:10:04 MDT 2008

*On McKinney v. Nader:  I'd rather support Nader, with his party-building
shortcomings, than support McKinney and the Green Party, which (at least
locally) is a swamp.   I'm afraid electoralism is non-starter this year and
we definitely need to get started.   Linda *

Stephen Lendman on Ralph Nader v. Obama (Portion below; whole thing
here: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9182)

> Nader's site states that "these twelve issues represent the tip of the
> political iceberg." But they show how big money controls both parties.
> Without change, democratic governance is impossible, and that, for Nader (in
> a May 31 Wall Street Journal interview), is today's "central" political
> issue - "the domination of corporations over our elections, and over so many
> things where commercial values used to be verboten -commercializing
> childhood....universities (nearly everything). What's happened in the last
> 25 years is an overwhelming swarm of commercial supremacy (and) Obama has
> bought into that."
> Obama's Record - The Measure of the Man
> He preaches change but supports the status quo. He's beholden to power as a
> stealth DLC member that's essential for any Democrat aspirant. It makes him
> gallingly disingenuous, deceitful to voters, and "safe" for corporate
> supporters who back him. He says individual donors supply most of his
> funding, that he gets none of it from lobbyists, and that they won't crowd
> out working Americans if he's elected.
> In fact, big money owns him. He raises over $1 million a day. Wall Street
> lords love him. So do corporate law firms; other finance, insurance and real
> estate interests; the health industry; communications and electronics firms;
> various other businesses; and the Center for Responsive Politics reports
> that his top five donors are corporate lobbyists - the same ones he claims
> to take no money from.
> He preaches opposition to NAFTA and wants it renegotiated. It's a "charade"
> says Nader. "There's no way he'll touch NAFTA or WTO." His health care plan
> puts insurance companies in charge and lets Big Pharma price-gouge
> consumers. He's beholden to corporate interests. "If he wins, his
> appointments will give "lobbies and PACs (what they) want." He knows how
> Washington works; was fully briefed to be sure; and he "made his peace with
> that." He's a political animal like the others. Big money is comforted, and
> why not. No one gets top Washington jobs unless they're "safe." For
> president, it's practically a blood oath, and Obama qualifies.
> Nader dissects his record. He's party line all the way, not a "transforming
> leader," and his running mate, Matt Gonzales, goes further. He calls his
> voting record "uninspired." Appalling would be more descriptive. While still
> in the Illinois legislature, he opposed the Iraq war. Then as a 2004 US
> Senate candidate, he switched and claimed "There's not that much difference
> between my position and George Bush's...." When elected, he proved it. He
> supported every defense budget and war supplemental and as president will
> "expand and modernize the military." He voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as
> Secretary of State despite her falsifying justification for war. There's
> more.

Power concedes nothing without a demand--Frederick Douglass
Make the demand!

More information about the Marxism mailing list