[lbo-talk] If only we (U.S) had leftish politicians like this

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Mon Oct 4 00:13:22 PDT 2004



>[lbo-talk] If only we (U.S) had leftish politicians like this
>ira glazer ira at yanua.com
>Sun Oct 3 18:56:49 PDT 2004
<snip>
>http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/04/waust04.xml
>
>Tough talker has poll win in sight
>By Stephen Robinson in Sydney
>(Filed: 04/10/2004)
>
>Mark Latham, Australia's brash populist leader who has accused the
>government of kneeling at America's feet, is close to snatching an
>unlikely election victory on a promise to bring home troops from
>Iraq by Christmas.

The US does have leftist and libertarian presidential candidates who pledge to withdraw US troops from Iraq -- Ralph Nader, David Cobb, Michael Badnarik, lesser known socialist candidates, etc. The difference is that, unlike Australians, the majority of US voters feel they are allowed to vote for only one or the other of the ruling-class-selected candidates pledging to continue the occupation of Iraq -- the feeling that a lot of US leftists have done their share to try to reinforce, rather than change.

July 29, 2004 Money vs. People THE MYSTERY OF THE 2004 ELECTIONS By Peter Miguel Camejo

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. . . .

<http://greensfornader.net/archives/2004/07/money_vs_people.html> -- Yoshie

* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list