Reply #54: You should be concerned [View All]

[WitchWay]

If you are concerned about republican operatives (and this is rhetorical, because I think politicians, in general, can best be describes as corporatist operatives) -- how come Kerry is still a Bonesbrother with a secret allegiance in Skull and Bones to Bush? How come Theresa Heinz was formerly married to a Republican senator in the same organization? How come Kerry was possibly considering McCain as a running mate? Kerry is much more supicious on the face of it. Kerry is the one who is always voting away various powers to Bush (IWR, FastTrack, Patriot Act). Kerry supports Free Trade and an imperialist agenda, and has no Iraq exit plan, for instance.

But, You need to take a look at the Nader Page before making accusations about Nader not doing anything. Nader has been busy his entire life doing things.
http://www.nader.org

Part of the reason that Nader is running is because he is having difficulties effecting change. The democratic party became so unresponsive, that Nader felt compeled to run for office. Nader is running precisely because he and organizations he founded, or organizations similar to his have been increasingly shut out of Capitol Hill. This became especially true with the development of the DLC and the Democrats' increasing reliance on corporate donors.

Nader has his reasons for running for president, and many of these have to do with the history of third parties in this country. Third parties can have significant effects on the agendas of the major parties -- and the republican party was actually formed out of third party movements.

When you have a two party system, you begin to have a situation of stagnation. With this stagnation comes an increasingly ineffective, unresponsive, unaccountable government. There is no competition -- so the parties have no need to serve the people or be held accountable. The more similar they are, they easier both parties can serve corporate interestes, and neglect the voters interests. After all, the voters have no power to change things. When voters have low expectations, they can only expect low returns.

Run inside the party? Nader said you can't win a wealth primary. He was right. Look at what happened to Kucinich. Just like Nader said. It was Kerry with his big bucks that won, and it was a very unfair situation, to say the least.

This two-party stagnation has become increasingly dangerous, though, due to imperialism and corporate control over our government. The Free Trade agreements are actually very dangerous, because they actually risk American sovreignty(letting Geneva tribunals take precedence over American policy)...Both parties are guilty of putting corporations before our country and us American People. Nader is running because he opposes corporate personhood and the undue influence that corporations have in this country and over the government.

Nader would proabably have a really good chance of winning if it weren't for the two party duopoly which controls everything from ballot access to the debates. You can look at
http://www.opendebates.org
for information about the debates and the complaint filed against the bi-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates. These debates are a sham, controlled by the two party system (and therefore, not democratic). The intent is to stifle anything controversial or any voice that is a threat to the two-party system (who seem to cooperate a lot on a lot of matters). The parties determine the format of the debate, and they can make sure that no tough questions are asked. Heck, they aren't even real debates!