Showing posts with label Ralph Nader. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ralph Nader. Show all posts

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Nader “absorbing” information about possible run for Senate…

Ralph Nader is “absorbing” information about possible run for Senate. Susan Haigh writes for the Associated Press, “Ralph Nader says he wants to gauge the level of grass-roots support before deciding whether to make a bid to represent Connecticut in the Senate.”

The Connecticut Green Party is trying to persuade the consumer advocate and former President candidate to challenge Democratic Senator Chris Dodd in 2010. State Green Party spokesman Tim McKee says social networking Web pages are springing up urging him to run for Senate.

SOURCE:

Friday, November 27, 2009

Greens picket Nader – begging him to run for Senate…

Green Party members are picket Ralph Nader, asking him to run for Senate. In an Associated Press article posted on Courant.com, Connecticut Green Party Spokesman Tim McKee was quoted saying weak polling numbers from Senator Chris Dodd get the Greens a great shot to pick-up the U.S. Senate seat. McKee was quoted, “A lot of Democrats would be upset about the prospect (of Nader entering the race). But we look at it as (he's) already lost the seat."

The Connecticut Greens planned a rally for Friday afternoon in West Hartford, where Nader is scheduled to speak at a book-signing. The rally will beg Nader to run for Senate.

McKee estimates Nader will need $3 million to $5 million for the campaign.

SOURCE:

Lou Dobbs polling at 6% in possible run for President, beats other third party candidates...

Lou Dobbs is polling at 6% in possible run for President. Democracy Corps conducted what could be the first poll including Lou Dobbs as a candidate for President, considering the former CNNer has not officially decided to run for President or ever run for any office, his numbers are pretty good. Democracy Corps identified Dobbs as an America First Party candidate.

Including people that are leaning toward a candidate, the 2012 election match showed President Obama getting re-elected in a race versus Mitt Romney, Lou Dobbs and Ralph Nader. The results:

President Obama (D) 47%
Mitt Romney (R) 37%
Lou Dobbs (AFP) 6%
Ralph Nader (G) 4%
Other 2%

SOURCE:

Friday, November 13, 2009

Nader for Senate?

Nader for Senate? Could Ralph Nader run for Senate in Connecticut? There is a possibility.

Glenn Thrush writes on Politico.com a number of people are asking Ralph Nader to for the Senate against incumbent Democrat Chris Dodd in 2010. Nader is a registered as a voter in Connecticut. Nader was quoted saying, “You can't believe the number of people of asking me [to run].”

Thrush writes, “Nader's entry as a third party candidate would be terrible news for Dodd, who is hoping to energize his liberal base in possible match-ups against GOP challengers Rob Simmons and Linda McMahon, who lead him in public polls.”

Thrush later added Nader is focused on reforms, not “electoral politics”. Even with that said, Nader has not made a decision on the Senate race.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Nader rips President Obama calling him "very disappointing" and "a frightened man”

In an interview with Yahoo! Finance former Presidential candidate Ralph Nader said he is not happy with President Obama. The Nader described President Obama’s first months in office as "very disappointing."

His disappointment came from what he called Obama lack of willingness to take on corporations, calling him “a frightened man." He also compares the Obama foreign policy as being too close to President Bush’s policy with “better speeches".

The consumer advocate say the President has not help the people that help him get into office.

SOURCE:

Monday, September 21, 2009

Obama has “got to learn how to fight”…

Obama has “got to learn how to fight” is the call from Ralph Nader. In an interview with ABC News’ Rick Klien, Ralph Nader took a number of shots at President Obama.

The biggest complaint from Nader was, “He’s never invited progressive leaders to the White House.” He continued, “(President Obama) invites CEOs to the White House, of health insurance companies and drug companies. You don’t win that way.”


Thursday, July 2, 2009

Ralph Nader says Perot was right...

Ralph Nader says Perot was right… in an e-mail to supporters.

Nader wrote Perot was, “right on General Motors, right on NAFTA trade, and right on the federal deficits.”

Nader pointed to Perot’s days on the General Motors Board of Directors and how Perot believed GM executives were inefficiently running the company. Nader argues that Perot’s calls against NAFTA can be seen in Michigan today as car plants were moved to Mexico. Perot's beliefs on having a large national debt were also highlighted.

The former Presidental candidate writing about another former Presidential candidate wrapped-up by saying a person like Perot could not survive today. “In Bush’s and Obama’s Washington, there is no room for Perot to gain visibility and recognition,” wrote Nader.

SOURCE: E-Mail
----NADER'S E-MAIL----

I’ve wondered often why people who go to “town meetings” held by campaigning politicians rarely ask fundamental questions.


Here is one that should have been asked of presidential candidate Barack Obama: “If you get to the White House, will you appoint to top positions Americans who have a track record of making the right decisions in their respective fields?”


“Of course, I will,” Obama would have undoubtedly replied.


Of course, he did not when it came to the collapse of the corrupt Wall Street casinos and the bailout of these gamblers by the American people. Obama chose the very Wall Streeters and Wall Street servants who were involved in, condoned, or profited from the speculative binges that led to the biggest government bailout scheme in world history. The President’s explanation is that he wants experienced people who know how Wall Street works. Yeah, right! In reality, he wanted political cover.


Something very important is missing when even people who are part of the ruling establishment are ignored, marginalized, or ridiculed even though their detailed, public warnings prove to be all too accurate.


Consider billionaire, Ross Perot. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Ross, as everyone calls him, was right on General Motors, right on NAFTA trade, and right on the federal deficits.


In 1984, he joined the Board of Directors of GM after selling his successful company, EDS, to the auto giant. He could scarcely believe how stodgy, bureaucratic, and insensitive GM executives were in running the company. He tried to shake up the boys at the top to meet the fast-growing competition from Asia and Europe.


The GM brass couldn’t stand Ross “at large” probing up and down the company, so in 1986 they bought out his shares in return for him leaving the Board.


Two years later, reflecting on his experience at GM with a reporter from Fortune, Perot called the “General Motors system a blanket of fog that keeps people from doing what they know needs to be done.”


Warming up, Perot continued: “One day I made a speech to some senior executives. I said, ‘Okay, guys, I’m going to give you the whole code on what’s wrong. You don’t like your customers. You don’t like your dealers. You don’t like the people who make your cars. You don’t like your stockholders. And, to a large extent, you don’t like one another. For this company to win, we’re going to have to love our customers. We’re going to have to stop fretting about dealers who make too much money and hope they make $1 billion a year though us. The guys on the factory floor are the salt of the earth—not mad-dog, rabid, burn-the-plant-down radicals. And all this sniping at one another—the financial guys vs. the cars guys—is terribly destructive.’”


GM didn’t listen to Ross. Now, after a long, relentless slide, GM is bankrupt, abandoning their workers, two thousand of their dealers, and their customers’ grievances. Moreover, GM is into the U.S. taxpayer for over $70 billion.


Perot devoted much of his 1993 published book Save Your Job, Save Our Country to NAFTA and trade. Looking back, he was right most of the time. NAFTA cost more U.S. jobs than it created, generated a huge U.S. trade deficit with Mexico, and mainly benefited the “36 businessmen who own Mexico’s 39 largest conglomerates or over half of Mexico’s Gross National Product.”


The border-located maquiladora factories have high worker turnover and squeeze the laborers in often unsafe conditions for little pay.


Here is how Perot described the scene behind the boasting of Washington, DC, and corporations about the large increase in trade after NAFTA:

“Most of the goods produced in the maquiladoras are shipped into the U.S. market. Consequently, most of the so-called trade between the U.S. and Mexico is not trade as trade is commonly understood. Rather, it is primarily U.S. companies shipping their own machinery, components, and raw materials across the border into their Mexican factories and then shipping their finished or semi-finished goods back over the border into the U.S.”


A good deal of the U.S. auto industry went south after NAFTA, leaving workers and communities stranded in Michigan and other states. Bankrupt Chrysler is planning to move a modern, award-winning engine plant in Wisconsin to Mexico after receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts.


On Perot’s nationally-televised deficit warnings (with charts), what more need be said? Even he did not envision what would pile up after his clarion calls. The burden on the next generation and the tax dollars diverted from our country’s needs to pay the interest on these trillions of dollars of debt were pointed out again and again nearly twenty years ago by the Texas entrepreneur. He even has a website (perotcharts.com) updating the red ink.


In Bush’s and Obama’s Washington, there is no room for Perot to gain visibility and recognition.


It is one thing for the Washington politicians to ignore prescient progressive commentators, like William Grieder, who have been prophetically right on. It is quite another escape from reality to turn their backs on leaders within the business establishment itself.


There are many like Perot who must be watching the day’s news and saying “we told you so, but you didn’t listen then and you are not listening now.”


Monday, June 15, 2009

Television is a wastleland…

Television is a wastleland… that’s the take in a recent e-mail rant from Ralph Nader. The former Presidential Candidate writes about it not be that big of a deal if your television lost it’s signal due to the digital transition. Here is Mister Nader’s e-mail criticism of television:

“At twelve noon on June 12, 2009, the end of analog television’s era was also when I let my set go dark. The last declaration I saw was that there were about three million of us disconnected but, no worry, we can still order the “converter box” to bring all those programs back to our living rooms.
“Going dark on tv was not that hard—at least for a while. My recent memories had too many “yuks” and too few “harks”.
“President John F. Kennedy’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Newton Minow, shocked a broadcast industry audience when he called television a “vast wasteland”. That was in 1961!
“Had he not mellowed as a corporate lawyer with a lucrative practice, what would Newton Minow say today? What is the superlative of “vast wasteland”?

“Television today—over the air and cable—with the usual exceptions, could empty the dictionary of disparaging adjectives. Some times slots—such as daily afternoon talk-entertainment shows—are so bad, so sadomasochistic and exploitive, that they escape the media critics. Why would Tom Shales—the insightful Washington Post critic who writes like a dream—want to apply his talented eye to shows that invoke the Latin phrase “res ipsa louitur”: the thing speaks for itself?
“On weekends, the shows swing from the slick infomercials, pushing cutlery and real estate wealth, to sports that become duller play by play—especially golf—to the Sunday morning news program where evasions of predictable questions run on and on.
“Then there are the second-rate movie reruns, the insipid sitcom shows, so dependent on canned laughter, the dramas, so spilt-second violent that they eliminate any kind of memorable suspense.
“The early and late local evening news needs psychoanalysts. Repetition may be economical for it requires fewer reporters.
“The thirty minutes of the late local news is composed of roughly nine minutes of ads, four minutes of sports, four obsessive minutes of four weather segments, the usual openings with street crimes or fires, the customary animal story and half minute of contrived, spontaneous chit-chat between the anchors and the rest—the abbreviated rest—is what can be called news.
“One local DC station once had the temerity to try vainly distinguishing itself from the sameness of its competitors by the slogan “no chit chat, no fluff”.
“So little time is left for news that most news is not covered—not in the neighborhoods, not in city hall or the courts, not in business, labor, schools, or civic activity or achievement.

“Missing so much reality by allocating lots of time for local news and wasting so much of it takes the label of those “Reality Shows” to the level of ironic satire.

”How much reality would there be without C-Span—that lonely tribute to the public intellect and engagement? Over ninety percent of television is entertainment or advertisements—mostly low grade even for those willing to inhabit bad taste.

“I just saw an auto ad on the news for Kia with hamsters driving and occupying the front seat.
“The public air waves belong to the people. They are the owners and the television stations are the tenants. Guess what? Since the beginning of television broadcasting, these lucrative stations have paid no rent. It is a rent free way to mint money under the guidance of a supine Federal Communications Commission and a Congress frightened of the power of the broadcast industry.
“Gone are the regulatory expressions of the 1934 statutory standard—namely “the public interest, convenience and necessity”—binding television stations to a level of public responsibility.

“Gone is the worthy requirement for each station to ascertain the public’s information needs in an annual public report to the FCC. There is no more fairness doctrine or right of reply. FCC station license renewals proceedings are not as frequent as they were thirty years ago.
“Some valuable shows manage to get through the “vast wasteland” and make money. Among them are 60 Minutes (CBS) and the Simpsons (FOX). Non-profit public television has the Bill Moyers Journal. The nature and history shows on some cable channels bear occasional attention.
“By and large, however, getting through the noise, hoping to find snippets of interest in otherwise flat and formulaic programs, and having to endure the densely-packed relentless advertisements and product placements, and not knowing whether a news segment is canned from an industry consultant, invites a vacation from an already limited resort to my TV.

“There are so many other things to do and learn and evoke than watching screens.”

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Green Party, Libertarians, and Constitution Party team-up...

Green Party, Libertarians, and Constitution Party team-up... The Green Party sent out a news release saying the three major third parties are teaming-up to file a federal lawsuit to challenge discriminatory provisions and enforcement of ballot access laws.

The news release says, "The Green Party of Pennsylvania is party to a lawsuit that was filed recently by the Center for Competitive Democracy."

The lawsuit challenges rules that force candidates to pay litigation costs and fees to private parties who challenge their nomination petitions. The release says, "these fees have amounted to more $80,000 for the crime of doing no more than trying to run for public office."

The news release pointed to 2006 Green Party Senatorial candidate Carl Romanelli. The release says Romanelli submitted more than 100,000 signatures to get on the ballot, “The Democratic Party challenged the signatures, and after a 7-week battle, chipped away at the Green Party signatures with technicality after technicality.” Romanelli was off the ballot and fined $80,000 in court costs. "You shouldn't have to risk house and home to run for office in Pennsylvania," said Hillary Kane, Chair of the Green Party of Pennsylvania. The release continued, “similar scenario left Independent candidate Ralph Nader… with more than $80,000 in fees from their 2004 Presidential run.”

SOURCE:
http://www.gp.org/press/pr-state.php?ID=220
http://www.gpofpa.org
http://www.gp.cofm

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Single Payer (Government-Run) Health Care…

Single Payer (Government-Run) Health Care… was the topic for talking on Friday for both the Libertarian Party and Ralph Nader.  Their opinions are polar opposites. 

The Libertarians calling President Obama on the carpet for support a Government-Run health care similar to Britain.  The LP writes how rationed health care is hurting people in Britain, even giving people death sentences as handed down by a national medical board.

On the other hand Ralph Nader sends an e-mail focusing on Single Payer health care.  He’s also calling a leader in Washington on the carpet – just the other end of it.  The Nader e-mail is very critical of Nancy Pelosi, asking her to force a vote on what he calls the “taboo” subject of Single Payer heath care.

Nader's pitches for Single Payer heath care included, “20,000 people die every year, according to the Institute of Medicine, because they cannot afford health insurance” and “According to leading researchers in this area, Dr. David Himmelstein and Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, single payer will save $350 billion annually.”

But, The big point of Nader e-mail, getting people to go to the website singlepayeraction.org

ANALYSIS: “Single Payer” health care or “Government Run” health care (whatever you want to call it) has major warts.  But are the warts worth it?  Who will make the best argument to the American public?

SOURCE: http://www.lp.org/blogs/donny-ferguson/for-katie-brickell-government-run-health-care-was-a-death-sentence

Top Labels on The Thirds