ModernMusings.com

Here is a small listing of the experience Ralph Nader would bring to the table.

1. American Antitrust Institute founded in 1998 Mission: To increase the role of competition, assure that competition works in the interests of consumers, and challenge abuses of concentrated economic power in the American and world economy.
2. Appleseed Foundation founded in 1993 Mission: To build a society where opportunities are genuine, access to the law is universal and equal, and government advances the public interest.
3. Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest founded in 1974 Mission: To ensure government accountability and protecting the legal rights of Arizonans.
4. Capitol Hill News Service founded in 1973 with a seed grant of $40,000 from Nader.
5. Center for Auto Safety founded in 1970 Mission: To provide consumers a voice for auto safety and quality in Washington and to help lemon owners fight back across the country.
6. Center for Insurance Research founded in 1991 Mission: To provide an independent voice for reform in debates about insurance, banks, financial services companies and related public policy issues around the nation.
7. Center for Justice and Democracy founded in 1998 Mission: To expose unscrupulous attacks by special interests on judges, juries, injured consumers and the attorneys who represent them.
8. Center for Science in the Public Interest founded in 1971 Mission: To provide useful, objective information to the public and policymakers and to conduct research on food, alcohol, health, the environment, and other issues related to science and technology; To represent the citizen’s interests before regulatory, judicial and legislative bodies on food, alcohol, health, the environment, and other issues; and To ensure that science and technology are used for the public good and to encourage scientists to engage in public-interest activities.
9. Center for Study of Responsive Law founded in 1968 Mission: To support and conduct a wide variety of research and educational projects to encourage the political, economic and social institutions of this country to be more aware of the needs of the citizen-consumer.
10. Center for Women Policy Studies founded in 1972 Mission: To shape public policy to improve women’s lives and preserve women’s human rights.
11. Citizen Advocacy Center founded in 1993 Mission: To strengthen the citizenry’s capacity and motivation to participate in civic affairs, building community resources, and improving democratic protocols within our community institutions, through public education, community organizing, issue advocacy, and precedent-setting litigation in state and federal courts.
12. Citizen Utility Boards founded in 1984 Mission: To represent the interests of residential utility customers across the state of Illinois.
13. Citizen Works founded in 2001 Mission: To advance justice by strengthening citizen participation in power.
14. Clean Water Action Project founded in 1972 Mission: To assure supplies of clean, safe and affordable water for all Americans, now and for the future. To Prevent health-threatening pollution at its source. To build an economy based on environmentally safe jobs and businesses. To empower people to take charge of our environmental future.
15. Connecticut Citizen Action Group founded in 1970 Mission: To create change on the issues our members care about including quality, affordable health care, protection of consumers, the environment, and democracy.
16. Disability Rights Center founded in 1976 Mission: To enhance and promote the equality, self-determination, independence, productivity, integration, and inclusion of people with disabilities through education, strategic advocacy and legal intervention.
17. Equal Justice Foundation founded in 2001 Mission: Reduce family violence. Preserve families and marriages. Restore due process. Reverse the loss of our civil liberties. Ensure equality for all citizens before the bar. Establish judicial accountability. Reestablish the rule of law. Preserve the secret ballot. Ensure open, fair, and honest elections. Make the Bill of Rights a living document in our time.
18. Essential Information founded in 1982 Mission: To encourage citizens to become active and engaged in their communities.
19. Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights founded in 1985 Mission: To fight corrupt corporations and crooked politicians
20. Freedom of Information Clearinghouse founded in 1972 Mission: To provide technical and legal assistance to individuals, public interest groups, and the media who seek access to information held by government agencies.

Sphere: Related Content

Dear President Bush,

Much of the world has condemned the violence and called on the Sudanese government to end the slaughter. You and your administration have, properly, called the mass killing “genocide,” and urged a peace process.

But the horror in Darfur continues. Tens of thousands more have been displaced in the last month. Violence has intensified in Western Darfur. Meanwhile, millions of displaced people are giving up hope of returning to their homes.

The noble words of your administration and the outside world have not been enough to change the course of the Sudanese government.

The United States knows how to deploy its political power and influence. It is now time to put more political muscle behind the effort to end the genocide, and achieve a peaceful solution to this conflict.

One leverage point is normalization of relations with the Sudanese government. You and your administration should announce that the United States will not normalize its relationship with Sudan until the Sudanese government removes all obstacles to the full deployment of the multilateral United Nations-African Union peacekeeping operation (UNAMID), fully implements the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and engages in good faith in a comprehensive, open and inclusive peace process in Darfur.

It is vital that the Sudanese government not be permitted to delay and derail UNAMID. A report in the International Herald Tribune succinctly captures the urgency of the situation:

“As Darfur smolders in the aftermath of a new government offensive, a long-sought peacekeeping force, expected to be the world’s largest, is in danger of failing even before it begins its mission because of bureaucratic delays, stonewalling by the Sudanese government and reluctance from troop-contributing countries to send peacekeeping forces into an active conflict.”

Rather than blaming the UN for delays, the United States should exercise leverage to accelerate the deployment of the personnel and resources that would make UNAMID into an effective force, and to overcome the Chinese government’s objections to deployment.

The United States has a complicated and interconnected relationship with China, but much more could be done to dissuade China from its ongoing support of the Sudanese government. The United States is willing to file claims against China at the World Trade Organization to protest failures to enforce patents, copyright and trademarks. Is it too much to ask for an equally robust effort to stop the slaughter of innocent human beings?

The U.S.’s Special Envoy for Sudan is the direct means for the United States to press Sudan to get peace negotiations jump-started and to remove obstacles to the full deployment of UNAMID. The Special Envoy’s office should be fully and adequately staffed, commensurate with the seriousness of his mission.

We look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

Robert Weissman

Sphere: Related Content

As promised I will present my arguments that Ralph Nader’s Presidential Campaign in 2000 was not a factor in Al Gore losing the election.

I will start by spreading light on the Democratic Leadership Council and their answer to why Al Gore lost in 2000.

The Democratic Leadership Council was created in 1984 by Al From and operates with it’s own think tank The Progressive Policy Institute. The danger lies within it’s mission statement: “the DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular political support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, nonbureaucratic solutions.”

Sounds good, right. Putting a pretty progressive label on this organization works to diminish the importance of true social progressives.

Would you consider Hillary Clinton a progressive? She is a leader of the Democratic Leadership Council.

So is Harold Ford Jr., ex-congressman from Tennessee who lost a run for the Senate and who has publicly stated that he hopes we don’t celebrate Black History month in the future. Mr. Ford is an African American who doesn’t want to offend anybody so he stands for no one. I found an interesting commentary on Mr. Ford written by Margaret Kimberley on The Black Commentator, definitely an informative read.

Al From, the father of the DLC and CEO, shared this telling opinion in the Christian Science Monitor: “The DLC leaders noted that since the 1970s , more voters have identified themselves as conservatives than liberals. Thus polarization may work for Republicans but not for Democrats. “Our challenge is not to unify as a minority but to expand to a majority,” From said.”

Let’s dissect this statement the Republicans were quite successful in completely changing the connotation of the word liberal, which is reflected in voters and myself to be honest which results in distancing ourselves from the word and the DLC sees this distance as a sign to mirror the so called conservatives. {I still don’t get what they are trying to conserve.}

The DLC is on a mission to subvert real progress by hijacking words. Words have power, don’t they. The DLC proudly declares they adopt a Third Way: “It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government, expanding choices for citizens, using market means to achieve public ends and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values.”

In this statement we continue to see the same ideological conquests, a total reliance on corporatism, and the continuance of the faulty reasoning that freedom of consumer choice is inherent in the freedom from oppression wrapped up in some feel good rhetoric.

At least they refrained from naming this Third Way, the Middle Way or Path from Buddhist teachings.

The DLC has sold the soul of democratic ideals to corporate interests in an attempt to secure a piece of the conservative American pie.

So the DLC is far from “radical” which is why I choose to use their own argument that Ralph Nader did not cause Al Gore to lose the 2000 Presidential election.

Blueprints is a magazine published quarterly by the Democratic Leadership Council and in January 2001 dedicated an entire issue to Why Gore lost, and How Democrats can Come Back.

Al From asserted that “Our new progressive coalition must expand beyond the Democratic base. It must include men as well as women, whites as well as African-Americans and Hispanics, suburbanites as well as city dwellers, moderates and even some conservatives as well as liberals. Above all, it must unite the interests and the support of voters in the working class with those in what scholars William Galston and Elaine Kamarck have called “the rising learning class” — middle- and upper-middle class suburbanites and New Economy workers. Vice President Gore failed to put together such a new progressive coalition.”

Al From also states in the same article that “The assertion that Nader’s marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race.”

So in other words this centrist-right Democrat states that Al Gore lost the election because he was too liberal and that Ralph Nader being in the race did not hurt Gore.

My next argument will look into the states where Ralph Nader was on the ballot and their voter registration logs to shed light on who voted for Nader and if they would have voted for Gore or would have stayed home.

I, then, will touch upon the vocal supporters of a recount in Florida and their dissatisfaction with Al Gore conceding the election.

***Update***
Here are so more informative Ralph Nader items-
from Joel S. Hirschhorn

from Tedd Rall

I am thoroughly appalled at the progressive communities bloody attacks on Ralph Nader’s character, purpose and reputation.

The loudest roar are from some within the progressive loop that I previously had high respect for.

I can tolerate the casual repetition of the Nader Myth but attacking his character crosses the line.

I don’t tolerate personal attacks on any of the candidates including John McCain.

Policies, records, advisers and the money trail are the only measurement that should decide your presidential candidate.

If after independent research you have chosen a candidate other than Nader or Cynthia McKinney, that is your right and I stand with you for a fair and HONEST election.

Any one who meets the requirements of Presidency can run.

Weren’t Americans bred on choice being our strongest expression of independence?

Rise up and fight fair.

Sphere: Related Content

I absolutely love being able to say those words “Got what I wanted.” playing Go Fish.

 

 

Performing my daily check up on Amy Goodman, I learned that Ralph Nader has created a presidential exploratory committee.

 

Today, I got what I wanted.

 

I tend to overflow a comment section from time to time.

Here’s an example:
I enjoyed this piece, {from CampusProgress.org} very much. Your analysis is quite on point.

Ralph Nader’s legacy encompasses the spectrum of his life long work, especially his presidential candidacies. He has started a presidential exploratory committee www.naderexplore08.com

My political and civic identity was born through exposure to the candidate for whom I caucused for in Nevada, Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Not only was I going on a limb, scrambling to educate myself on his record, bio, the issues, his campaign style not to mention volunteering for a political campaign, calling radio shows, canvassing, going to a town conference, and attending a free speech rally where I was interviewed for a published newspaper article.

Wooo!

A lot to absorb and digest to say the least.

Part of this process was owning my power as a citizen.

I, after 31 years, affirm:

• Politicians are public servants. They are elected to serve the public. We are the public. We are their Boss.

• When does a Boss grovel at the feet of their employee?

• A vote cast is duty. The highest level of civic participation in this democratic republic. The highest level of critical thinking is a mandatory prerequisite.

• The media’s power lies within the scope of communicative channels of distribution. The more channels accessed produces the variety of information and opinion necessary to serve as background information. Independent research is equally necessary.

Our future, the future of my three boys, everyone, everywhere is deeply affected by civic, social administration and control; in simpler terms, politics and government.

If we are to honor our existence and our time on Earth than we must participate.

Fight off all urges or coercion to be satisfied with the role of spectator.

A long comment, I know.

I strongly support Ralph Nader as an activist, and as a President candidate.

Sphere: Related Content