Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Tue

22

Jan

2008

Twenty-seven Reasons to Draft Ralph Nader for President
Tuesday, 22 January 2008 13:49
by Rosemarie Jackowski

The reasons are:
1. Hillary
2. John McCain
3. Seat belts
4. The abuse the Katrina victims by their insurance companies
5. 650,000+ dead Iraqi civilians
6. 3000+ dead U.S. military
7. The Black Budget
8. Torture
9. The CIA
10. Blackwater
11. Lack of access to Health care which causes the deaths of 18,000 US citizens every year.
12. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, MSNBC
13. Factory farming and franken foods
14. Monsanto
15. The loss of family farms
16. The lack of regulations to restrict predatory practices by the banking and credit card industry
17. The mortgage crisis
18. Global warming
19. The loss of good will toward the U.S. around the world. Ralph could restore the status of the U.S.
20. He is not a Republican.
21. He is not a Democrat.
22. He is not an Empire builder.
23. He would not invade Iran, Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, Finland, Switzerland, Canada, Mexico, or New Zealand.
24. Ralph owes no favors to any corporation.
25. Ralph cannot be bought.
26. Ralph has a long history of quietly working behind the scene to help ordinary people in their struggles against the powerful - such as the time he helped a group of New Jersey citizens oppose the construction of a floating nuclear power plant off the coast of Atlantic City. Ralph quietly came to Cape May, no fan-fare, no political motives. He helped the people. The people won. The floating nuclear plant was not built.
27. Ralph is smart, incorruptible, and honest.
Ralph is not the only candidate who should be considered for the presidency. There are others who are also qualified, such as Dennis Kucinich, Angela Davis, Cynthia McKinney, Ward Churchill, William Blum, Cindy Sheehan, and many, many more.

More from this author:
9/11 — Conspiracy or Blowback? (3629 Hits)
by Rosemarie Jackowski It is now time to look back and remember — well not exactly. That’s what we have been doing for what seems like...
Poodle Skirts, Buzz Cuts, and Bombs (4145 Hits)
by Rosemary Jackowski This country is just not what it used to be. How many times have you heard that. This country is just not what it used to...
Closing Ranks Against the United States (3630 Hits)
by Rosemarie Jackowski Encirclement has begun. Encirclement is the policy of singling out a nation that has become a major international...
Meltdown at the US State Department (3806 Hits)
by Rosemarie Jackowski You almost have to feel sorry for Condoleezza Rice these days. Seems that the Secretary of State is under attack on all...
A Death on Valentine Street (3285 Hits)
by Rosemarie Jackowski Frank did not know many people in his small New England town. Frank was old - probably in his 80s. He lived alone in a...
Related Articles:
THE COUCH POTATO: Psychoanalysis of a President (8026 Hits)
Via sources unknown and by methods unclear ("Stuff happens" – the Hon. Donald R. Rumsfeld), Atlantic Free Press has come into...
Learn to say Please, Mr. President (5285 Hits)
by Anwaar Hussain Mr. President, Now that a thumping smack has been delivered by American voters to the backside of the Empire...
The Best Reasons Not to Impeach, And Why They're Wrong (6017 Hits)
By David Swanson Political questions are tricky and complicated. Sometimes causes that are just and good must take a backseat to...
Put on the Spot, Our Punk President Lies Yet Again (6449 Hits)
by Walter C. Uhler Whenever I hear President Bush tell another lie (or read that he has told another lie) I'm reminded of the Liar-in-Chief's...
Our Next President Needs to Be Well-Seasoned (5802 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler I certainly agree with those who regard Barack Obama as an appealing and impressive fellow. And I thought John...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (10)add comment

Tom Semioli said:

0
Let's Begin The Draft!
Excellent Ms. Jakowski! I will forward this missive to all my colleagues. I am still reviled by Dems for volunteering for Ralph in the past two elections - but it's pretty obvious now that he was right all along.
 
January 22, 2008
Votes: +0

Howard said:

0
Ralph should only run if he is going to focus on ending the "spoiler" phenemenon
As I've written on my blog, Nader's running is not constructive unless, through his run, he challenges the election system itself that leads to the possibility of "spoilers". Read this piece before supporting Ralph and if he does run, think about urging him to take up these priorities.
 
January 22, 2008
Votes: +0

Howard said:

0
The link
I guess I can't post a hyper link. The blog post in question is at:

http://www.systemsthinker.com/blog/2007/12/an-unreasonable-man/
 
January 22, 2008
Votes: +0

Kevin Zeese said:

0
Executive Director of TrueVoteMD.org
Howard:

Ralph supports IRV or ranked choice voting. I was his Press Secretary in 2004 and he included it in a range of election reforms. There is a lot wrong with U.S. democracy -- and I use that word with a recognition that it is a democracy manipulated by two corporate-dominated parties, corporate interests and concentrated media -- IRV is one very small fix.

And, it is a mix when it comes to IRV's impact. The influence of third party and independent candidates. A lot of the power of challengers has come because they got voters from existing voters (as well as others) to follow them. By getting voters to support them the other parties got weaker and had to consider the third party/independent candidate issues. They have either adopted them in our history or ignored them. When ignored the third party has become the second party, e.g. during the slavery era when the Whigs were replaced by the Republicans who had their roots in the abolitions parties that preceded it. Many good ideas - farmer rights, worker rights, ending child labor, health care for the elderly and poor, 40 hour work week . . .these all came because of challengers. Would they have been listened to if there were IRV and the challengers votes were mearly absorbed by the two parties in the second round?

IRV frees the voter to vote for his/her hopes and dreams rather than voting based on the fear of the greater evil. But, it actually undermines the power of new ideas since the votes are immediately absorbed into the two dominant parties unless the challenger has a chance of winning.

Kevin
 
January 23, 2008
Votes: +0

Dale Mastarone said:

0
Ron Paul precinct captain
Ralph Nader, as a presidential candidate, must go against Ron Paul who has a set-in-stone Congressional voting record that is entirely consistent with all but one of the twenty-seven criteria given in your column as to why Ralph Nader should be drafted. The "iffy" question is whether Ron Paul is a true Republican, a Libertarian - or something else? I suppose the same question could be applied to Ralph Nader, whether he is truly a Green Party candidate or an independent. Ralph had the right idea, hey, "None of the Above" in the new Hampshire primary back a sew campaigns ago. Political party identity is probably one of the most stupidest ideas that Americans have ever bought into. Vote for the person that truly represents your values and hopes, not a party platform. Should Ralph Nader be drafted and actually run, what it will amount to this late in the two-year campaign for president will be a couple of hundred thousand votes, meaningless, really, because Ralph Nader will have entered into the competition far too late and with little funding to get his message out. On the other hand, Ron Paul is in line with the 26 of the 27 reasons set forth above why Ralph Nader should be drafted, and Ron Paul has the message, and the strong financial backing, to carry him into the nomination and then as winner in November 2008. According to the 27 criteria above, every one that would consider drafting Ralph Nader for a presidential candidate in 2008, and Ralph Nader has yet to announce any intention to run, should give serious consideration to getting behind and strongly supporting Ron Paul, the candidate that came in early, has strong and unending financial support from the common people -- and Ron Paul never promises more than he can deliver -- and he always delivers more than he promises.
 
January 23, 2008
Votes: +0

Kai said:

0
Dale Masterone: I think you need to check your Ron Paul facts
Up until several weeks ago, I have been diehard supporters of Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Dennis is not getting enough support due to the MSM blocking him so if it came down to it, I would have gone with Ron Paul. But in recent weeks, I've read some startling information regarding Paul's connections to White Supremacy groups as well as his stances on abortion, marriage, and education. Yes, some of the 27 reasons to vote for Nader are shared with Paul but you cannot base your decision solely on the reasons. A deeper inspection into a candidate's background and beliefs is required before judging their ability to run this country. I would still love for Kucinich to be that man but people are too busy watching the dog-n-pony show that is Clinton/Obama/Edwards. If Nader decides to run as an independent, that will make a world of difference and he will definitely get my vote.
 
January 23, 2008
Votes: +0

Carl said:

0
2 Time Nader Voter
I agree with Kai's remarks concerning Paul. Paul seems to know what's wrong with the country but his proposed solutions seem disastrous, and the link to Confederate secessionists is frightening.

Nader, however, is able to tackle the issues that undermine our democracy and hurt most citizens: corporate control of finances and the law, lack of ballot access, media consolidation, no living wage or universal health care. If he runs I hope he can make these issues "sexy" or he will be shut out by the media just as before. With Green party backing in 2000 he had much more coverage. The Democrats are sure to get another centrist due to how the system works- Obama and Edwards aren't very progressive and routinely mince words. Unless one of them chooses Kucinich as running mate,I will certainly vote for Raph again.
 
January 24, 2008
Votes: +0

Dale Mastarone said:

0
Kai, I doublechecked my facts
KAI, you stated in your comment, "A deeper inspection into a candidate's background and beliefs is required before judging their ability to run this country." Because Dennis Kunicich quit the race, and you were already in favor of Ron Paul, -- well, that tells me something, you are probably anti-Iraq War for one thing, one thing both Dennis Kunicich and Ron Paul have in common. I double-checked my facts, and then triple-checked them. Yep, hands down, Ron Paul in all of his nearly 20 years in the Congress had never voted for any measure that was not within the bounds of the Constitution, and nor can he ever be accused of that, totally consistent with the most, not all, of the 27 reasons set forth to draft Ralph Nader. The office of president of the United States is a Constitutional office, Please refer to the Constitution for the legitimacy of each of the 27 reasons above. Do we want a president running this country that obeys or disobeys his or her oath of office, "... to preserve and protect ... from all enemies, both foreign and domestic..." The office that Ron Paul is seeking is a constitutional office. Upon being sworn in as president he will swear an oath to "uphold and defend the laws of the United States." Please take a close, hard look at Ron Paul's record in the Congress, same oath. That is about as public and preserved record as one can get so far as his or her beliefs go. You might consider that you can usually rely upon someone to do in the future what she or he has done in the past. The allegations about Ron Paul having White Supremacy leanings regarding those newsletters? Ron Paul denies any authorship of those newsletters. He fired the man responsible for those statements that produced the newsletters. Please consider taking Ron Paul at his word -- as several hundred thousand fiercely independent Texans have for many decades when they continued to re-elect him as their Representative in the Congress. They trusted him to be honest with them, and he never lied to them, nor went back on his promise to them, to be their Representative that would uphold and defend the Constitution. Oh, yes, Ron Paul might be considered somewhat as a racist because he voted against the production of a gold medal for Rosa Parks. To wit, Ron Paul made his statement to the Congress assembled, "It's about $100 each for 300 of you in this House of Representatives of the people in favor of this resolution to make a personal donation to create this medal. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows us as the representative body of the people to spend their money for something we just happen to like, or to seek to gain reelection upon." NAACP leaders endorse Ron Paul for President based upon his voting record for equal rights and equal opportunity -- and doesn't that more than suggest the Ron Paul is not racist? So far as the abortion argument goes, I did my research -- and must totally agree with Ron Paul that there is nothing in the US Constitution that even strangely suggests that the federal government has any authority whatsoever to overrule the states' legislatures on the issue. A close reading of the US Constitution shows without any doubt that there is absolutely no federal authority to decide on abortion. I totally respect your position that if Ralph Nader entered the race that you might would vote for him. That is your absolute right to choose, that is your absolute right to make your statement, based upon your beliefs and convictions. Should Ralph Nader go from the 3% of the vote in 2004 to say double that, or even quadruple, 12% in 2008, that will be dramatic. The problem, as I see it, 12% of the popular vote will not cut it to have Ralph Nader elected in 2008, although it will be progress. Frankly, looking at how the presidential electoral system in set up now, a popular vote of even 60% does not mean that the people's candidate of choice will be seated in the Oval Office. Please remember that G.W. Bush did not receive the majority of the popular vote in 2000, and he is still sitting as president in 2008. G.W. Bush has clearly demonstrated, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that he could care less about the Constitution and the laws he swore oath to uphold and defend. Laugh out loud the next time your hear President Bush include in any sentence he speaks the words "Rule of Law", unless, of course that he admits in that same sentence that he has been one of, if not the leading, violator, of the Rule of Law in American history. In my humble opinion President Bush unlawfully seized opportunity with 9/11 to continue to take unfair advantage of the American people in his unconstitutional grasp for unlawful powers, just as his predecessors in the Office of the Presidency have done for far too many decades. I sincerely hope that I don't appear obnoxious as I state this, but I think that we are at the edge in America today. We either get this thing solved in this 2008 election cycle or it will be a much harder task for freedom-loving Americans to get their freedom back. Yes, it should be realistic to expect that a third party candidate's position on issues will influence the other two party's to have to make adjustments to their positions. The problem is that the candidates in both paties, with the exception of Ron Paul, are all planning for a bigger, more intrusive federal government - with unlimited powers -- and they all promise for more world policing - including bombing Iran because of its "potential" to become a nuclear power and be a threat to Israel. Ron Paul says it well, to wit, "Hey, Israel already has over 300 nukes, and Iran only has the potential. What kind of threat is that to America that we should go in and bomb them? What has Iran been convicted of?" Contrast Ron Paul's position to all of the other candidates' positions. In regard to education, Ron Paul is opposed to the Department of Education. Please look at the history of the Department of Education. It was created in the early 80s by President Carter. What has been the result since its inception? American kids have been "dumbed down" in the government "fool system" through federal mandates imposed upon local schools. Why is it that today that many of high school graduates cannot read the writing on the diploma handed them? In spite of all the federal money that goes to the schools - provided that the schools, in order to be eligible to receive those federal funds, must conform to certain federal standards? The "No Child Left Behind" program has practically doubled the budget of the federal Department of misEducation [not a misspelling]. By doubling that budget, should we expect to receive double the same results provided by Dept./Ed. as we have previously seen? In other words, fewer students able to read the diploma they are handed? That has been the history. I humbly suggest this to think about. It costs about $80,000 plus to "educate" a child from K-12 -- 13 years. Give me 13 years and $80,000 to buy bananas with and I believe I could teach a gorilla to read and write! The evidence is outstanding about the failure of the federal Department of misEducation. Similarly, we all know about the failure of the Bush Department of Homeland inSecurity [not a misspelling] and Hurricane Katrina. Personally, I feel less secure today in my homeland than I did several years ago, because the federal government could come and take me away and plant my sorry butt in Gitmo until I died of old age -- without having any right to speak to an attorney ever, never expecting a fair and impartial hearing -- and just my writing and having published this piece on the internet could be enough reason for the government to do that -- because I am critical of the Bush misAdministration [not a misspelling]! I have the well-founded hope though that, if that happens, I won't be in Gitmo for long, Ron Paul will be President, swearing his oath of office on January 20, 2009, and I'll be freed shortly after that. And just one more thing. You appear to have a fear of Ron Paul concerning his views on marriage. I think I have my facts straight. Ron Paul is running for President of the USA, The president has no constitutional authority whatsoever to have any say in what marriage is, that is a state issue, unless there is a federal constitutional amendment regarding the subject. The president of the USA is not legitimately entitled to "rule" on anything that is not constitutional for him or her to be involved in, in other words there is no such power. As you chide me, Kai, to check the facts on Ron Paul, I respectfully suggest that you check the law (Constitution)about what a president (or any other federal servant for that matter) is legally permitted to do, and then check the facts about Ron Paul and his recorded votes in the Congress, and determine for yourself that Ron Paul has never exceeded his authority. Judging what someone might do in the future based upon his past acts, then I trust that President Ron Paul would never sign any bill that is in conflict with the Constitution. And the president does not have the power to amend the Constitution unilaterally define marriage. A president, however, might choose to ignore the Constitution, as we are seeing today, but that is not Ron Paul's history. And finally, Kai, I sincerely commend you for your commitment to take a good hard look at the candidates for president and to ultimately vote your conscience. You cannot ever be considered wrong or unpatriotic when you vote your conscience.
 
January 27, 2008
Votes: +0

Mary said:

0
Cynthia McKinney . . .
. . . is the Green Party candidate for President. No draft required.
 
January 28, 2008
Votes: +0

Joe Schlobotnic said:

0
How do I join up?
Has he a website?

Joe
 
January 30, 2008
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top