portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

government selection 2004

DemoStalinists Sue To Block Nader From Arizona Ballot

Democrats Sue To Block Nader From Ariz. Ballot

Thursday, June 24, 2004; Page A08
Democrats attempted to put a roadblock in front of independent candidate Ralph Nader's efforts to gain access to the presidential ballot in Arizona, with the filing of a lawsuit by two Arizona residents challenging the validity of the petitions submitted by Nader's campaign.

The suit underscores the determination of the Democrats to try to frustrate Nader's efforts to qualify for state ballots. It is a shift from four years ago, when party officials and the campaign of Vice President Al Gore generally ignored Nader, who was running as the Green Party candidate, in the hope that his campaign would not attract support.

The suit, filed in superior court in Maricopa County in Phoenix, charges that, of the 21,512 signatures on Nader's petitions, only 6,045 are valid. State law requires Nader to submit 14,694 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Although state law prohibits a political party from filing or financing such suits, the state party provided space in its office for volunteers and staff members working on their own time to review the signatures.

"We did this on our own," Arizona Democratic Party Chairman Jim Pederson said. "I hasten to say we're not taking action on behalf of the Democratic National Committee or the Kerry campaign."

Nader called the suit "potential harassment" and said if Democrats persist, he will revise his campaign strategy. "We will concentrate only on the close states."

The action in Arizona came a day after Nader stormed out of a Capitol Hill meeting in which members of the Congressional Black Caucus told him to abandon his bid for the White House. The chairman of the group, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), refused to apologize for a meeting that Nader publicly described yesterday as abusive.

"Some of them used very abusive language," Nader told National Public Radio host Tavis Smiley during his morning program. "Congressman [Melvin] Watt of North Carolina used such abusive language until I could hardly believe what he was saying."

"We could understand his right to run, but we were just convinced after the meeting that this was just about Nader," Cummings said. "First of all, he can't win, but he can be an aider and abettor of four more years of President Bush's regressive leadership."

homepage: homepage: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A626-2004Jun23.html?nav=rss_politics

the democrats are busy 24.Jun.2004 02:58


Nailing up their coffin.

Good riddance.

"We will concentrate only on the close states."

That's one of the best ideas I've heard this whole year. The democrats want to try and fuck the progressives they're going to get fucked back hard. Right now the race is on as to which party can run the worst, most ineffective campaign and that race is too close to call at the moment.

By the way, democrats, I'm vowing here and now to not vote for or provide any support for any democrat candidate until they respect the principles of democracy. I don't care how progressive their ideals, if they are allied with the democratic party in its current form they will not get my support.

Only if... 24.Jun.2004 06:12


The Dems boot Kerry, make Kucinich their canidate and change their oppressive tactics will I vote Dem. Otherwise this swing state votes goin' to Nader.

No Surprise 24.Jun.2004 07:50

Den Mark, Vancouver

No surprise that democrats fight harder against progressives than against republicans. democrats ARE republicans. Particularly sad when black politicians don't understand & support progressives. democrats clearly do not get it.

let's swing this state 24.Jun.2004 09:04


The democrats are pushing just as hard here, tearing down posters and threatening with intimidation tactics. They don't even try to court the left anymore.

They threaten and abuse us. Resist the fuckers.

Donkeys are 6 feet under 24.Jun.2004 09:45


Would have voted for an anti-war Democrat candidate.

Given Kerry, planning to vote for Nader instead.

Laughing at fascists who insist I must vote for lesser of two evils.

It's time for us to declare our independence! 24.Jun.2004 09:55

Get Nader on the Ballot!

The fact is that the Democrats and Republicans BOTH work for their corporatist Masters to beat down anyone that raises the FACT that our Government, controlled by the Two Major Parties is NOW almost entirey under Corporate Control. Anyone who tears down Nader signs, who protests Nader rallies or colludes with either party to destroy Nader's candidacy is IN FACT working as a corporate minion and entirely against the interests of the people.

Democrats are using censorship and fear-tactics to CONTROL people in order to deny them representation. That's what "Anybody But Bush" is all about. It's about using peoples' fear against their own self interests. It's disgusting. If Kerry has a viable platform, THAT should be the convincing argument. The fact is that he doesnt, so the Democrats have created a campaign entirely based on a psychological operation of FEAR. Funny that they (especially Kerry) did so much to HELP this fear-source (Bush) that they now USE to manipulate their rank and file. How can anyone trust a party/leader who HELPED what they say is evil.

It's not funny, though. Because its' entirely frightening. Democrats rail against the fascism of Bush, while ignoring the grwoing fascism within their own party of unity pledges, censorship, empty slogans, fear-baiting, harassment, closed mindedness. IT's growing like a monster. It's not funny because no one is seriously examining Kerry. The entirely faulty logic that if someone is not Bush, they are therefore not evil is WAY out of control.

Democrats will begin losing a great deal of support because of the irrational way that they are reacting to the Nader candidacy (instead of trying to cooperate and adopt issues). The fact that Nader has offered a strategy, and the Democrats are completely unwilling to engage in this shows just WHO the democratic party represents (and its' corporations and monied interests). Democrats work to stop Nader, all the while their own party is shitting all over them.

Look, if the democratic party is REALLY interested in ousting Bush (and not just using him as a way to beat people down to vote for Kerry) they would begin impeachment hearings. It takes one congressman. Bush's crimes are serious enough. The fact that Democrats are NOT impeaching Bush is entierly telling. It just goes to show that they are USING Bush to manipulate the public, exagerrating the threat of Bush or that they are IMPLICATED in the same wrongdoings as Bush. Democrats don't want to impeach, because all hell will break loose if they do. It would most likely implicate BOTH PARTIES in this egregious war, and other wrongdoings. Democrats are more concerned about maintaining powre and control than ousting Bush. Their arguments become thinner by the day, and their actions speak louder than words.

Get Nader on the Oregon Ballot 24.Jun.2004 10:07

Get Nader on the Ballot!

Everyone who wants to VOTE for Nader, please help get him on the Oregon Ballot. If he's not on the ballot, our choices will be limited.

The word really needs to get out, so please let everyone know that there is a:


This SATURDAY (June 26th, 2004)
from 5-7 PM
at BENSON HIGH Auditorium
546 NE 12th AVE
Portland, OR
(1 block from Llyod Center Max Stop)

Please come. You can help get Nader on the ballot, and hear him speak. Bring as many people as possible. Inform all your friends, family, neighbors. Get out and let everyone know! Don't underestimate the effect that your help can have. It REALLY can make all the difference. Volunteer, if at all possible. Even a few hours is a great help, and you can also help at the Convention, itself (no experience is necessary).

If you want more info or to VOLUNTEER call 503-224-2647 ext.112

Visit the following sites for more information:

ALSO, go to www.cspan.org
Do a search for Nader and you will find a bunch of interviews and speeches he has given. The latest one announces his running mate, Peter Miguel Camejo.

one last plea 24.Jun.2004 13:01

Steve G.

Alright, go vote for Nader. Tell your friends to vote for Nader. Go campaign for Nader. I know I can't convince you otherwise so I'm just on the verge of giving up.

But I have one last plea. No, I'm not going to tell you to vote for Kerry.

So here it goes.

When Bush gets re-elected because people like you refused to vote for Kerry, don't whine about Bush. Don't protest Bush. Don't dislike Bush. Embrace and love Bush. Because he is the President you helped elect and the President that you deserve.

If I see or hear ANYONE who supported Nader speaking out against Bush once he gets re-elected I will be incredibly outraged. You had your chance of defeating him, but you passed it up because you were way too good for the Democrats.

So, you can vote for Nader if you want to. You just will have to live with its consequences.

Steve G.'s Totalitarian World View 24.Jun.2004 13:30


In the world according to Steve, if we don't vote for his candidate, we must be Bush supporters. That's ridiculous. Steve, Kerry could learn from the Socialists in Spain and realize that giving people an alternative means you can do it in foreign policy as well. If he came out for immediate withdrawal of troops Iraq, instead of running to the right of Bush by promising to send MORE troops to Iraq, he would have no problem winning the election.

Re: Steve G. 24.Jun.2004 13:34

get real

Bush cannot be re-elected because he was never elected in the first place. The fact that you fail to grasp this after it has been exposed for more than 4 years demonstrates that your opinion is seriously misinformed and does not have much value. If you want to support the www.kerryisaworthlesspieceofshitbutiwillvoteforhimanyway.com club, go right ahead. However, you seem to want to persuade folks that not only should they not vote for Nader, but they should also forfeit their option to vote for Nader as well. Their is nothing democratic about that.

Correction 24.Jun.2004 13:42

get real

I meant 'it has been exposed for more than 3 years'.

lay off steve 24.Jun.2004 13:54


Now he must understand how Nader voters feel when they see democrats criticizing Bush after 9 million of them voted for Bush and the democrats in congress voting in Bush's policies almost without exception. There is something to be learned from that understanding.

Nader Supporters are fighting the entire Two Headed Monster 24.Jun.2004 14:01



No matter who I vote for, I will protest Bush just as I would protest Kerry. BOTH support the war. Kerry has enabled Bush on many matters, so you should have it out with Kerry about HIS support of Bush. In my opinion, supporting either Kerry or Bush is contributing to an entirely corrupt two party system that supports terrible wars and occupation, American imperialism, the destruction of Civil liberties, and the selling out to corporatists. Kerry and Bush two separate heads of the same corporatist monster. You are merely fighting one head, and listening to the other. I'm more concerned about fighting the entire damn corporatist monster.

From my perspective, you are helping the Corporatist Duopoly by supporting Kerry. You are supporting the war in Iraq. Kerry is part of the same monster that is Bush. Many, but not all, Nader supporters are really quite beyond caring whether it's Bush or Kerry in the White House.

And it's childish to suggeest Nader supporters think they are "too good" for the Democratic Party.
Nader supporters don't think the democratic party is good, of course. If they thought it was good, they wouldn't be working from the outside. But, you are wrong to suggest a selfish intent. Nader supporters think the party is pretty bad for everyone.

It is not about selfishness, it is about standing up. It is about urgency, and the urgency to take back the government from monied and corporate interests, and get it back into the hands of the people where it belongs.

When the Democratic Party is at the point where all it is using fear to command loyalty, there is something deeply wrong. You ought to be troubled by that, but you are not. You are too obsessed with the "blame Nader" excusism and finger pointing so rampant in your party. The democrats are using Nader as a scapegoat, all the while completely ignoring cries for representation, for justice, for action. This kind of party loyalism, that you promote, has become dangerous and its beginning to get in the way of a loyalty to our democracy and our country. Grow up.

Fairy tale 24.Jun.2004 14:09

been there

Once there was a little girl. She was dying. There were people who knew how to cure her, but none of them could get to her. She had some doctors, though. They were bumbling fools. They wanted to give her medicine that wouldn't cure her. The medicine would, however, keep her from dying, and maybe, just maybe, she would struggle out of her disease, eventually getting better. She wished those doctors were better, though. Oh, those doctors were nothing like her friends. Her friends were so nice. They were perfect.

The doctors proposed giving her more medicine now. It was a tiny, tiny bit better than the other stuff, but it would keep her alive awhile more, while the doctors could figure out something better. She thought she would take the medicine.

But her friends gathered around her. Look, they said, the medicine is yuchhy. Yuchhy yucchy yucchy. It doesn't taste good or look pretty, and it won't make you feel perfect right away. Why take it? We wouldn't ever take that medicine. There are so many things we don't like about it. Here, have some nice apple juice. It's very sweet, and it's pure. Take that instead. Don't take that yuchhy, ugly medicine. It's not perfect like this apple juice.

So the little girl drank the juice, and threw away the medicine. She smiled. It was yummy! Her friends smiled. They were happy that none of them had wanted the girl to take the yuchhy, yuchhy medicine. Everything was perfect now.

So the girl died.

The end.

Steve G. is Right. 24.Jun.2004 14:17


Steve G. is right - a vote for Nader is a 1/2 vote for Bush, unless you never would have voted for Kerry (or anyone else) in the first place.

Nader shouldn't run. He has the potential to draw away Kerry voters, thus helping Bush.

He's also wasting his considerable political capital on a quixotic crusade to feed his ego, rather than focusing it on reforms such as Rush Holt's ban on voting machines without a paper trail, or on progress toward universal health care.

Nader's also a union-buster Wal-Mart would be proud of for his work to keep Multinational Monitor a "right to work" magazine.

Good to Know 24.Jun.2004 14:36

Go Nader!

If my vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, then I know who cast my vote for to support Nader in the event that he doesn't make it onto the ballot. By the way, the election is still several months away. The nomninating convention is only to provide the option of voting for Nader. It is not an actual vote for Nader.

vote and lose 24.Jun.2004 14:36


What a wonderful waste of time for voting for this-or-that filthy rich white men is. Happy choosing, suckers! Kerry=Bush. Nader is the lesser evil. Nader wants a UN occupation of Iraq. Polls show Iraqis hate the UN more than they hate the US. They hate both, but Nader doesn't care what Iraqis want. And Kerry and Bush are perfectly oblivious to what Iraqis want. Kerry phoned Spain's new leader to urge him to ignore his constituents and stay to occupy Iraq. Kerry has cheerled every single false claim that Bush made for the war.

To those who believe Kerry is better than Bush: why? Kerry criticizes Bush because Bush didn't send ENOUGH troops. Bush wants 20,000 more active duty troops in Iraq. Kerry wants 40,000. Kerry wanted MORE colonialist nations to be in on the rape of Iraq. I guess having prominent rapists in on a gang rape makes it more moral?

The president is a stooge spokesmodel. Our "democracy" is corrupt and fraudulent. I enjoy reading these threads to remind myself how off-track well-meaning people can get. That condescending and inspipid doctor-patient-medicine analogy is such a false metaphor

Voting is one more vote for a corrupt system where only the ultra-rich have a say and a chance. Educate. Organize. Boycott. Strike. Direct action.

been there? 24.Jun.2004 14:41

ex-democrat voter

Talk about false analogies and silly premises. Good for a laugh though. Sometimes I think it would be good for Kerry to win just so the people in this country can give the democrats shit about 4 more years of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan policies. I guess the Iraq war will be a wonderful liberation once Kerry's running it. lol

"unless you never would have voted for Kerry (or anyone else) in the first place."

Exactly. I have a feeling that the people who would vote for Kerry only if Nader wasn't running are fictitious. I've never met one in all my years. I've never met anyone that decided to vote for the corporate parties when a third party candidate wasn't available. It goes back to the shitty polling that happens. I'm going to see if I can get a new set of polls done to cast some light on this issue.

"He's also wasting his considerable political capital on a quixotic crusade to feed his ego, rather than focusing it on reforms such as Rush Holt's ban on voting machines without a paper trail, or on progress toward universal health care."

Yes, as opposed to the democrats who are feeding their fascistic side by attacking Nader and trying to deny him ballot access instead of working to make sure people's votes are going to be counted (I won't mention universal health care, we all know how the democratic party feels about that).

The democrats are shooting themselves in the foot, and everywhere else in the body of the party. But hey, it's great entertainment for the rest of us. The dems could win in a landslide, their first real victory since 1992. Hmmm, you think maybe they'd compare that victory to their repeated failures since then and try to learn something... naw, that's too much work. It almost makes you think that the DLC and DNC strategists are republicans; ever since their rise to prominence the dems have continued to lose ground. But you know what the dems say: "when a strategy fails we just have to do the same thing that much harder next time and we're sure to win."

Funny 24.Jun.2004 14:42

get real

GRINGO seems to have spent hours and hours composing countless posts trying to convince people what a waste of time it is to vote.

"great entertainment"? 24.Jun.2004 14:48

been there

"But hey, it's great entertainment for the rest of us."

Glad you're all so amused, kiddies. I'm sure the families who've lost loved ones in Iraq, in other countries including this one, as a result of Bush, are laughing their heads off.

Go on, be amused. I'm sure your trust funds won't be affected. As for the rest of us, we'll go on struggling in the real world.

Please do your research before spouting Democratic Propaganda about 24.Jun.2004 14:52


It is undemocratic and presumptuous of you to twist the meaning of others' votes are in order to work it into your warped Dupolistic mindset. You have no right to make presumptions based on someone else's intent. How dare you. Those votes are votes for NADER, no one else. Also, AND AGAIN, what about Kerry supporting BUSH's Agenda? Is that okay with you? do you support the war in iraq? Because supporting Kerry, at this point, is supporting the war and occupation in Iraq.

Do you realize that because of the Democratic party that Ralph Nader has been unable to get reforms through? You need to learn a little about ralph nader and why he is running for president, because it has alot to do with the inefficacy of the sold-out democratic party. Look into it. Watch his campaign announcement on cspan, read his articles, but don't go around talking about things you have been too lazy to look into.

By the way, Nader has been busy proposing and supporting paper-trails. Do your research. And NADER supports Universal Health Care. Again, do your research. You are uninformed. Kerry does nothing to support Universal Health Care, you can check out a Kucinich speech to hear how much the Democratic Party DOESN'T want to address the issue of universal health care. It's entirely impossible from within the corrupted system of the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, don't spread Nader's "ego" demo-propaganda machine quips about. Since Democrats have little of substance to attack Nader on, they resort to outright character assasination. It's disgusting. Ralph's "ego". This is the most absurd attack. It is baseless and disparaging. Can't you discuss issues, policies, platforms, instead? Nader's support comes from support of his policies and his integrity. I saw the smear campaign on Nader unfold before my eyes in 2000. It was truly reprehensible.

"Nader's also a union-buster Wal-Mart would be proud of for his work to keep Multinational Monitor a "right to work" magazine. "
Look, I do disagree with Nader here, but not entirely. Why? Because thesee jobs were more like internships or activist work. You go, work, learn, move on. It's something that students do when they finished school, or between college and grad school -- jobs which are meant to be a year or two of experiential learning that looks good on a resume. This isn't a lifelong career sort of situatio, and the students who get these jobs are not going to be hurting for money. But this is the one very minute attack that can be made, and it is made again and again and again. Why?

I'd advise you, so very concerned with the "poor" workers, to expend YOUR political "capital" worrying more about John Kerry's voting for Normalized Trade Relations with China if you are so damn concerned about Labor rights. I'd advice you to be more outraged by Kerry's support of free trade agreements that basically use Genevea courts to nullify labor standards in country's all over the wordl. I'd advice you to worry about John Kerry's support of an egregious and devasting war that is costing Iraqis and Americans their lives. And I'd advice you to worry about John Kerry's National Service Plan and what it implies. Nader opposes Taft-Hartley, does Kerry?

What Iraqis want 24.Jun.2004 15:00


"They hate both, but Nader doesn't care what Iraqis want."

Of course, Gringo has demonstrated in the past that he doesn't care what Iraqis want, either. Polls are only useful to Gringo when they support his pre-determined world view.

Nice rhetorical device though.

yes you will keep struggling 24.Jun.2004 15:11

ex-democrat voter

Because you are unable to do anything effective. Remember 2002? Yeah, democrats running in full support of Bush's policies, like the Iraq war worked really great, didn't it?

I opposed the war, therefore I will not vote for Kerry. If you want to tell yourself that helping elect someone who voted for the war and has continued unwavering support for it helps those who have lost their lives in Iraq, go for it. Whatever helps you sleep at night. I guess if you're voting for Kerry you must think the war was a good idea and the US should stay in Iraq for a few more decades, or even indefinitely.

And if the democrats continue to attack the working class and naively assume that they're fighting those with "trust funds" and resort to ageist comments, well, once again, they're only going to continue to lose ground as they have been. By their actions I would guess the democrats would rather have another 02 than 92. Well, I won't tell them what to do, after all, they do know what's best and I can't be trusted to use my vote "wisely".

War is a Bipartisan Problem 24.Jun.2004 15:16


been there,

You are being entirely ignorant to assume that war is a "republican" problem. Senate Democrats voted for this war, didnt' they? Bush should have never been given war rights, and democrats should have never allowed it. That's the sort of party you are defending. War is a Democrat and Republican problem.

You are doing blaming others but doing nothing to oppose the war if you support Kerry. Kerry is for this war, he voted for it and he pledges to stay the course. I heard a clinton interview recently where clinton said that he'd go to war in Iraq, he would have just "waited" a little longer. He says he supports the war, and the democratic party does. This makes me entirely sure that Gore and the democratic party would have waged THE SAME egregious war. Those who voted for Gore or Bush share far responsibility for Iraq than any Nader voter.

If you care about the families in Iraq, you should not support Kerry who wishes to "stay the course". You would realize that plans for an Iraq war were set way before Bush, in the Clinton administration. That is why there were continuous sanctions and periodic bombing campaigns in Iraq. To pretend otherwise is to put on blinders to the obvious. And what about Yugoslavia? Was that "good" because it was a democratic war-campaign. Plus, what the hell is that evasive "parable" you threw up? Please speak with issues, policies, something real. You are avoiding that sort of discussion because you have not done intelligent research into the candidates and their issues and motivations. You are supporting a pro-war candidate and ignorantly attacking Nader supporters who oppose this war and both pro-war pro-imperialist parties.

some democrats get it 24.Jun.2004 15:19


Look, I may end up voting for Kerry and it is true that lots of democrats seem to have no grasp on the principles of democracy. But there are those of us who do get it, who do want Nader on the ballot, and even in the debates. Nader's views are so similar to Perot's that having him in the debates would grab a lot of support from fiscal conservatives. In addition the democrats need to stop using the Bush playbook; a playbook that has one page that simply reads: FEAR!

Kerry has done a good job distancing himself from the Nader detractors but he could come one more step forward and welcome him to the race. He could show that he is unafraid of being challenged and that he is confident in his message and platform. That display alone would win him a lot of respect, and votes. Anyway, for a good read on the subject check out this post which concludes (correctly in my opinion), "It's a no-cost, no-risk move. And the right thing to do too."


Fascist Appeal 24.Jun.2004 15:44


SAN JOSE, California (CNN) -- Former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca, who backed President Bush four years ago, switched sides and endorsed Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president Thursday.

About the Debates 24.Jun.2004 15:45


reader - -

something interesting is that Edwards has supported the Citizens' debate commission. so, if Kerry does chose an Edwards V.P., it will be harder to see Nader locked out of the debates again.

I actually think it is a tactical error for Kerry to use the Presidential Debate Commision to try to keep Nader out of debates. bush would do so bad in real debates, that he'd be toast.

If anyone is interested in what has been going on with the debates, check out:


I agree with the fact that Nader needs (and will) start drawing from independents, fiscal conservatives and Perot voters. He already has a lot of that support, but I think that he will and should get more as people grow angrier with Bush.

Nader's gotta get on that ballot...spread the word.

Choose and lose 24.Jun.2004 16:36


"I'm sure the families who've lost loved ones in Iraq, in other countries including this one, as a result of Bush, are laughing their heads off."

Iraq did NOT happen "as a result of Bush." Regime change was an openly stated official policy for Clinton-Gore's 8 years as well. And Gore would have done the same. And Kerry doesn't think Bush invaded with ENOUGH troops. But since over 1.5 million Iraqis died and NO Americans died, I guess that was OK? Democrat presidents have brought the US into WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and almost started WWIII with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Democrats are MORE warmongering than the republicans.

Vote democrat or republican and you lose. Vote Nader and you lose. Vote and lose. Your leaders are not leading you. Forget them and deal with reality for a change. I will spend more hours posting facts about the uselessness of the entrenched political system and how it is rigged fromn the start. As long as you are voting and campaigning for your illustrious leaders, you are an obedient citizen. A Good German. Oops I meant American.

Interesting GRINGO 24.Jun.2004 16:52

get real

For all the times I've seen you post here, I have not seen you help organize a single boycott, strike, or direct action. Not voting would only be interpreted as low turnout, and would do exactly nothing to change our current position, yet that seems to be your most passionate cause.

Onthe 24.Jun.2004 17:24


Just combine the two - Vote, then as Gringo says, do a lot more.

It is not a dichotomy. Voting is important, but being active the other 364 days a year is more important

voting for PRESIDENT is NOT important 24.Jun.2004 20:22


your 'vote' in local / regional / national House-Senate electoral contests has a much greater proportional chance of influencing the outcome of those races,

than does your pointless casting into the Electoral College-decided (and - in 2000 - Supreme Court-decided) pResidential Selection.

go ahead: please do vote for Tom Potter and against Fascist Phony, or any other smaller-scale electoral contest you can name.

please DO NOT vote for Republicans in any circumstance.

but if you think that the current pResidential Selection between two multimillionaire Skull & Bones elite blood brothers has any relevance, importance or possible effect from casting your 'vote' in it, you have another think coming.

Presidential voting would not change our current position whatsoever 24.Jun.2004 21:34


A low voter turnout would be ideal. That way, no politician could claim true leadership. Their authority would be undermined. It's why Australia makes voting mandatory: so that they can claim "a mandate from the people" whenever a politician even belches.

I agree heartily with the most recent comment.

Don't Vote and Lose 24.Jun.2004 23:41

Adammonte9000 adammonte9000@aol.com

Hey Gringo, democracy is only kept strong when the people participate. A non-vote is a vote for Bush I say. By not voting, you're saying you're ok with all the government does, cause you don't want to do anything about it. If you don't like Bush, Kerry, or Nader, find someone else. But if you don't vote, you're helping the status quo and the crony elitists in charge and saying they can continue screwing you and undermining democracy at will because you don't care! Cynicism like this won't help our country. If you don't vote, don't complain about Bush or the government or anything else, because you allowed it to happen!

And for all you sane people here, VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love Portland 24.Jun.2004 23:49


I love you all! No one else in the country is debating this like we are. Please everyone, come to the rally on Saturday!!! Here in Eugene I have yet to see ONE Nader sign. Is the bus really leaving from S. Eugene High at 2 p.m.?

Here's an idea! 24.Jun.2004 23:58


What we need (besides more parties and instant runoff voting and public financing etc.) is a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" spot on the ballot! So if the majority of people select it, we have to srart over again, and keep doin it over until the system works for the people!

message to democrats: 25.Jun.2004 00:15

not a nader fan, but i hate you

fuck off

DON'T GIVE ME POISON 25.Jun.2004 00:18

independent thinker

so let me see here, the democrats are saying, "bush is poison!"

kerry is poison, too, but MIGHT be slower.

so, the only question here is HOW i want to die.

but i want to LIVE.

neither dems nor reps are offering me that.

some people are asleep or stupid, though, guess....

wrong, Adam - actually the opposite is true 25.Jun.2004 00:55


Democracy is only kept weak when the people "participate." ANY vote is a vote for Bush (because the fraudulent e-voting machines will count them that way regardless - he is our first unelected President - he was appointed). By VOTING, you're saying you're ok with all the government does, cause you don't want to do anything about it (your vote gives them the OK). If you don't like Bush or Kerry, then you're screwed. But if you DO vote, you're helping the status quo and the crony elitists in charge and saying they can continue screwing you and undermining democracy at will because you don't care! Cynicism like this won't help our country. If you DO vote, don't complain about Bush or the government or anything else, because you allowed it to happen! You gave them the legal "public mandate" to carry about their job of "leading" you. This is why Australia made NOT voting illegal.

Actually, GRINGO . . . . 25.Jun.2004 06:21

LTugo ltugo@cox.net

Our first unelected president was Gerald Ford, but you probably knew that.

Again, This is a NOMINATING Convention 25.Jun.2004 09:08

get real

There will be no opportunity to vote or not vote at his event. All that this event will provide is a spot on the ballot making it easier for us all to have another choice to select from during the actual election. Anyone that thinks that we should not have the opportunity for another choice is either fearful that their favored candidate is too weak to withstand the competition, or they are opposed to the concept of democracy.

'e-voting' in Oregon is a non-issue, since we have a mail-in system that provides a paper trail by definition. Major gains have already been made to diffuse the potential e-voting threat, including recent California bans on the machines. Awareness of this potential source of fraud has been heightened, largely thanks to entities like IMC.

Low voter turnout will do absolutely nothing to improve our current position, and it makes it that much easier for the results to be manipulated. Voting for a write in candidate or writing in 'no confidence' or 'none of the above' sends a clear message that yes, you do care, and no, the choices offered are not acceptable.

We have plenty of time the debate the various issues surrounding the actual election, however. Again, there will be no opportunity to vote or not vote at this Nominating Convention. It is simply an opportunity to have another choice on the ballot.

jefferson exchange 25.Jun.2004 09:47


Hey all

I tried to bring up the issue about fraud in 2000 to Jeff Golden this A.M. on the call in line, but I thin he didn't want to deal with this and broke for station I.D.

Sound familiar?

Nobody wants to look the truth in the eye because it's too painful. So all they can lean on are lies, pressure and threats. We have become such a fear-based society that most people can't see the nuts and bolts anymore, just the surface.

It is so wonderful to hear people really talking about this and having the courage to do something, too.

See you on Saturday.

For WitchGirl 25.Jun.2004 09:59


WitchGirl: Do you realize that because of the Democratic party that Ralph Nader has been unable to get reforms through? So do you think he'll be able to work with the Republican party if his quixotic run for President succeeds? No. They'll use him up and give him short shrift once Bush steals another election. Having a viable third party is a good idea, but success has to come at the lower levels first. The Pacific Greens are doing a good job getting people elected to various councils and some city councils and mayorships nationwide. But President is out of the question now. What my previous post argued is that Ralph Nader's energy and political capital are being wasted running for president when he could be more effective organizing people specifically to support such reforms, or even organize progressives to run as Democrats. Look at Ron Paul - he tried the Nader route as a Libertarian and had no success, yet was able to win a House seat as a Republican. Nader could be organizing progressives to run for Congress, state legislatures, or city councils as Democrats or nonpartisan candidates (like in Portland), but wants to be President himself. And regarding Multinational Monitor, I've seen this happen time and again - most recently with ACORN in Portland. Nonprofits don't believe they're subject to the laws other businesses are required to follow, which includes paying minimum wage, paying overtime, and abiding by labor laws re unions. Even though the interns may have been "college students," they're still covered under Federal labor laws, and the interns had every right to form a union.

For Varro 25.Jun.2004 11:53



I am not going to address the crap about nader running for lesser office, because like your other anti-Nader arguments, I've heard them again, again, again, again, again...and frankly it amounts to a "marginalization" argument used against Nader that I find despicable. Nader has quite enough knowledge, work experience, expertise, experience, background, and intelligence to run for president.

As to your point about labor laws, I already said that TO SOME EXTENT I agreed. But tell the truck drivers, factory workers, walmart workers, people losing their jobs overseas because of Kerry's free trade support that they should have pity and sympathy for Ivy League kids who get to work for Nader and by the very nature of their work have a great resume that will get them places. Still, non profits are different, and most people who work at a non profit (I've worked at non profits) understand that they are not in it for the money, but for service and experience.

Again, you do not respond to what you think about the issues I raised about John Kerry's policies concerning labor. Instead, you attack back with that singular, tired and hackneyed argument against Nader that I've just (again) addressed. Why don't YOU defend or respond to the issues I raised about Kerry. The issues that I brought up are far more serious and far-reaching. Address those issues and stop wasting your time continuing a lame smear campaign that was started against Nader in 2000.

Bush didn't steal the election, by the way. Gore never bothered to "win" his won election by making sure that predominately African American voters scrubbed from Florida's voting polls were REPRESENTED and enfranchised. I, myself, wonder why. It is an issue that has not yet been addressed to this day.

As for progressives running for congress - listen to an interview with Camejo and Cobb on Democcracy Now a few days ago. Camejo said that the democrats had basically stopped the greens from running a congressperson (anti war) against pelosi. These two-party tricks and strategems to shut out third parties do not stop at the state level. This is why the two-party system sucks.

If Nader has enough support to win the presidency, he will have enough support to have power in Washington. Furthemore, he'd have no problem talking to the press on any issue, and encouraging citizens to actively press their representatives to support certain initiatives (if they so desire). By the way, you need to look at Nader's demographics to understand that he already does have conservative and independent support.

That you say "President is out of the Question Now" is really just because you desperately want Kerry to be coronated to take office. There is no reason to make this statement about Nader. It is based on your determined support for Kerry. Kerry is pro-war and I cannot support a pro-war candidate. And it's not just me. There are tons of people against the war who will not support either Bush nor Kerry.

Classwar: the ingraned political institution of this country 25.Jun.2004 18:19


"nader running for lesser office"

As if a good mayor is somehow less relevant than a titular leader of an imperialist nation. Even if nader took his bid for presedency seriously and say ran for governer of oregon then flooded the state with his pirgsters to gain political credibility-expierence for his a more focused later bid for presidency, any person really commited to making politive change in this position would find themself directly opposed by the political institutions of this country, slandered by thier supporters, then SHOT by an anonomous gunman.

GRINGO, ARE YOU ON DRUGS? 26.Jun.2004 00:17


You have a dictatorship when people don't decide who represents them, and that's what you're advocating! To get change, the people need to do it, and they do it by voting, cause the system needs to be changed from the inside. Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and just about all intelectual progressive agree, and are urging people to vote. You're obviously showing that you don't care about democracy, and it seems to me like you just flat out hate America and don't care what happens to it. Feel free to move to a dictatorship elsewhere, but don't complain when Bush gets re-selected and starts another war. Everybody knows that democracy is based on the participation of the people...FACT! You obviously have NO idea what you're talking about. Please get educated and grow up, cause you're not helping to change anything by complaining and not giving any solutions except telling people to not get involved in politics and not participate in democracy.

Let me add... 26.Jun.2004 00:32


"But if you DO vote, you're helping the status quo and the crony elitists in charge and saying they can continue screwing you and undermining democracy at will because you don't care! Cynicism like this won't help our country."

Huh???? THIS MAKES NO SENSE! So let me get this straight.......by participating in democracy (which by definition, democracy is the act of people participating by voting for who'll represent them, FACT) that means we hate democracy? By voting to get rid of the crony elitists, we support the crony elitists? You just make less and less sense. Keep it up. And one more thing, if nobody voted, then the crony corporate elitists would stay in power cause they'd never be removed by the people. And keep in mind that the brutal dictator Slobadan Milosevic was removed from power not by the war in Kosovo, but by an election because the people VOTED! If they'd have listened to you, he'd still be in power. You are a fascist. As for all other sane progressives on this site, please ignore him, and remember to VOTE this november!

One more thing... 26.Jun.2004 01:11


I apologize for the name-calling, it's childish. I just have little tolerance for ignorance.

please try to understand, Adam 26.Jun.2004 09:19


IF the US was a democracy, I'd say you have a point. But you don't. Because the US is NOT a democracy. The US is a plutocracy. There is a DIRECT money=power situation here. The system is corrupt and fraudulent. All of your progressives are of varying degrees of toadies. Michael Moore thought that it would be swell if war criminal idiot Wesley Clark was president. Amy Goodman takes Ford Foundation and other CIA money in order to practically ignore and undercut all coverage concerning 911 and Israel. And Chomsky and Zinn are voting Nader ONLY because they are in "safe" states, bowing down to their various corporate gods of punditry. Chomsky also ignores crucial information concerning 911. While all of these people have good things to say, how progressive are they?

When you vote in such a corrupt money-driven system as the US's, all you are doing is rubber-stamping the fraud as legitimate. You are laboring under the lie that the US is a democracy. What evidence do you have of that? Our current "president" was not even elected! Where were you in 2000?

The most intelligent people realize that they are not always correct. I have considered your views, and your reactions (very similar to the far right with its "yew hayte 'murica!" BS), but I don't think you even comprehend what I'm saying. Do you honestly think that the US is not a plutocracy? How can you believe this?

on "crony elitists" 26.Jun.2004 11:23


To directly address your concerns, Adam: when voting, you never have the option to "vote against" anyone. You only have the option to vote FOR one person. So there is no way to vote "against" anyone. And if you want to vote FOR someone who is not a crony elitist? Then who will you vote for? Bush and Nader have personal fortunes in the tens of millions, and Kerry has one in the hundreds of millions, and that is merely what these candidates have stated because they are legally obligated to. Bush and Kerry have both made a career out of being crony elitists, and do nothing but favors for the ultrawealthy, whom they are one of. Kerry has taken the MOST soft money of any Senator in the Senate. And Nader, for all his talk, has made money off of funds who invested in Halliburton. every one of these guys is in it for the money. So who, pray tell, is the NON-crony elitist who you are voting for?


To GRINGO STARS 26.Jun.2004 23:10

Adammonte9000 adammonte9000@aol.com

I agree to a certain extent that the US is not a pure democracy, definitely. But in order to change that, we start by voting! That's perhaps the most democratic thing about the system, and we need to use it. Just what makes you any better than Amy Goodman, Moore, Chomsky or Zinn by the way? I don't care that Michael Moore indorsed Clark, though I do think that was a bit odd. I've never heard anything about Amy Goodman taking money from the Ford foundation or the CIA. Plus, you could probably dig up dirt on anybody! As for Chomsky ignoring information concerning 911, I have no idea what you're talking about. Chomsky has done more exposing of corruption of our system than just about anybody (and certainly more than someone like you). All these people have done more to help the progressive movement and to help this country and democracy than you could ever dream of doing pal. But if you want to be pessimistic and complain and say that everything sucks and not DO anything about it or suggest any solutions, go ahead, that's your right. But don't expect me or most progressives (including people on this site) to follow you.

I don't want followers 26.Jun.2004 23:55


And I can't STAND followers. Especially followers of Bush, Kerry. Even Nader.

To take part in a corrupt system, acting as a dupe and a justification for their corruption, is not within my abilities. The system acts on money. If you think you will change ANYTHING in this PLUTOCRATIC system, you are exactly where they want you: happily ineffectual.

I am not "better than" Chomsky, Goodman, Zinn, Moore. They have done A LOT on various issues. But when you think critically and educate yourself, you will find that you can work much smarter and more effectively. I have already suggested as much as I feel comfortable suggesting actions to strangers, within this very thread. Ignore the black hole of energy, time and money that is electoral politics. Boycott. Strike. Direct actions. Educate. These things are effective. And to be more effective, learn WHY we are in the bind that we are in now: because many within our own ranks are treading water doing nothing on inspipid, self-defeating tactics that are harmful, in the end, by getting what the opposition wants you to do: nothing real.

Do you have no intention of learning new things? Learn about Goodman. Learn about what Moore wants accomplished. Question capitalism, which is why the US wages war endlessly. The US is not even a partial democracy. It is barely a partial republic. It has NOTHING to do with democracy. Follow the link in my previous post: it is about plutocracy. Follow the other links there on that article. Learn. Read. Your ranting is is ill-informed. Burying your head in the sand will not help things. Chomsky ignores the many FACTS concerning the nature of 911. In other words: undoubtedly 911 was at peast partially an inside job. He has acknowledged non of this. Why? Well, I won;t baby-feed you information, which is what you are apparently used to. Which is no wonder, concerning the uncritical following act you do for the asinine Anybody But Bush movement. Although you might be used to that, I will presume you are an adult, despite your ignorant ranting.

There is a profound difference between being pessimistic and taking the first step towards progress in a profoundly harmful country: admitting that there is a problem, and IDENTIFYING SPECIFICALLY WHAT THOSE PROBLEMS ARE. If you were to give such issues any thought, you would never consider Moore's endorsemnt of Clark "a bit odd". Nothing is odd when you are familiar with the situation.

The last thing I want is for anyone to follow me. I want people to think critically for once about things that so-called progressives usually take for granted: such as the utility of voting.

Don't worry GRINGO 27.Jun.2004 01:17

Adammonte9000 adammonte9000@aol.com

We won't follow you. And it's hyprcritical for you to say "you're RANTING is ill-advised" when all you do is rant on and on without giving solutions. And I have identified that there is a problem with our system, in fact many! The first step to fixing it is by voting. We do need to change the electoral system and bring down corporate america and change the neo-liberal capitalist system, etc. but we won't if we resufe to vote, that is the start. Getting somebody like Nader or Kucinich in the white house is certainly a good start. We do need to do much more than just voting. And beleive me, I know plenty about people like Moore, Goodman, etc.

"There is a profound difference between being pessimistic and taking the first step towards progress in a profoundly harmful country"

I agree, my solution is to take that first step...vote, get involved in grassroots activism, etc. You're solution is to be pessimistic, bitch about the system and do nothing but sit down and suck on it. That never has and won't work pal.

PS - what do you mean Chomsky has "ignored" important 911 information? He's not on the 911 commission, he's an author and he writes about all informations he knows about that's not getting out to the public.

and I'll say once again 27.Jun.2004 01:37


If there's nobody good on any ballots, and if voting for anybody won't change anything, then we need to get a "none of the above" option on the ballots (along with instant runoff voting, etc.), then if most people select that, we need to start over and keep at it until it does do some good.

You still don't get it 27.Jun.2004 16:31


I have repeatedly given suggestions for action, which you apparently willfully ignore. Scroll up.

Voting won't help. You rvote won't be counted in most instances, and besides as long as votes can be bought with a compliantly corrupt media, no real contenders who will reform things will ever get elected. besides, reform is a pipe-dream. Working within this system, which has safeguarded itself from any real change, will perpetuate the same results that have come up since the system was established: nothing. the system changes you: you don;t change the system.

That's why change happens outside the system. That's why you must boycott, strike, and perform direct actions. Power is taken, not granted. Pacifist tinkering of capitalism will only uphold the racist ultraviolent system that capitalism inevitably leads to.

Cgomsky has written a book on 911, which I read. It has good points, but completely ignores the proof of co-conspirators within our system. (11 could not have happened without an inside person (mopst likely many inside people), and Chomsky ignores this. 911 is the weakest link of the Bush/Kerry genocidal imperialist empire-builders, so it should be publicized by those progressives with propagandic power, just like Moore did with the Bin Ladens getting flown out of the country during the nationwide no-fly period right after 911.

I am not remotely pessimistic. I am confident that revolution will bring this disgusting empire down, sooner or later. But you are pessimistic, since you believe people can't attain the government they need. Instead, you pessimistically rely on some or other King Arthur, a saviour to gallantly take away all our problems, and all we have to do is vote? Sheer pessimism on your part.

Actually I do get it, you don't 27.Jun.2004 22:05


"I have repeatedly given suggestions for action, which you apparently willfully ignore"
then you say...
"besides, reform is a pipe-dream"

So you just said you've offered suggestions for action, then you say reform is a pipe-dream. Make up your mind.

"Cgomsky has written a book on 911, which I read. It has good points, but completely ignores the proof of co-conspirators within our system. (11 could not have happened without an inside person (mopst likely many inside people), and Chomsky ignores this"

Chomsky is not perfect, he doesn't know everything! (and it certainly appears like you don't) He can't put every single detail of 911 into his book. What exactly is your point?

"But you are pessimistic, since you believe people can't attain the government they need. Instead, you pessimistically rely on some or other King Arthur, a saviour to gallantly take away all our problems, and all we have to do is vote? Sheer pessimism on your part"

Um, actually I do believe people can attain the government they need, and I've suggested that MANY times! Where have you been! And please don't put words in my mouth. And I've never suggested relying on some "King Arthur", not have I said all we have to do is vote. I've said voting is a start (and it is since it's one of our main and most important democratic rights) but that we have to do much more, like get involved with grassroots activism and protesting and dissent, etc. I'm offering solutions, you jsut say we have no democratic rights and we're a plutocracy and you suggest sitting back and not exercising our democratic right to vote. I don't think I'm the pessimistic one. Once you say something that makes sense and offer some real solutions like I've been doing, let me know.

No, you really do not understand at all 27.Jun.2004 23:17


Revolution is the only way. The system is too far gone, designed from the beginning to oppress anyone who is not a land-owning christian white male.

Chomsky is ignoring some of the most crucial aspects of 911. Which makes him yet another coincidence theorist.

Your simplistic "solution" is not a solution at all. A vote means less than nothing in a plutocracy. I see you are in denial on this point. And you are addicted to being spood-fed your information, which I certainly can't do for you. You need a lot more information so that you can get by your democrat party illusions. I can't undo the trillion-dollar propaganda that has so effectively snowed you. If you had the inclination, you could certainlt study what a plutocracy is and the fact that we are living under one now. Lord knows I've provided a link to several articles about that. But since you've taken an authoritarian, trusting view of the political world, there can be no real dialog since you have repeatedly dismissed me as out of hand, pessimistic and inactive, which are entirely untrue. Yet you think that we have a democracy, so go figure... Hey, good luck with your precious reformist attitude. You have a lifetime of wasted energy and time ahead of you. Bang your head against that wall - it's your own head to bloody, after all.

I understand much more than you do 28.Jun.2004 13:06


"Chomsky is ignoring some of the most crucial aspects of 911. Which makes him yet another coincidence theorist"

I think Chomsky is slightly more intelligent than you are. Plus, he doesn't "ignore" crucial aspects of 911. HE doesn't know every single thing about 911! Get off the guy's back!

"Your simplistic "solution" is not a solution at all"

Yes it is, and it's more than you have to offer. You have no solution, except to say that this country and everything sucks and there's nothing we can do about it. Your ignorance is unbelievable!

"A vote means less than nothing in a plutocracy. I see you are in denial on this point"

Actually I'm not. We're not a plutocracy (least not yet) cause we still do have our democratic right to VOTE and we do have candidates that don't buy into the system (like Kucinich, Nader, etc.).

"You need a lot more information so that you can get by your democrat party illusions"

Just where do you get your information? I'm just as educated as you are, or are you so detested by anyone who disagrees with you that you think you're superior? I'm not a democrat, by the way.

"I can't undo the trillion-dollar propaganda that has so effectively snowed you"

Once again, anybody who disagrees with you is brainwashed. Yeah. I guess your'e right, and everybody else is wrong? The stuff you yourself post is nothing more than ignorant propaganda (in my opinion).

"But since you've taken an authoritarian, trusting view of the political world, there can be no real dialog since you have repeatedly dismissed me as out of hand, pessimistic and inactive, which are entirely untrue"

You're the authoritarian here pal, saying people shouldn't exercise any democratic rights they have, just sit back and think about how they live in a plutocracy and it can't be fixed except by a "revolution" without giving details about how to achieve such. Not to mention you're the one who automatically shouts down and says that anyone who disagrees with you even slightly (like most progressives and most people on this site) is naive and stupid.

" Hey, good luck with your precious reformist attitude. You have a lifetime of wasted energy and time ahead of you. Bang your head against that wall - it's your own head to bloody, after all"

And you have the ignorant nerve to call ME pessimistic. I have solutions, which I've presented over and over and they have worked and people like MLK and Gandhi have proven it! Participating in the democratic process does work, social activism does work, and voting does. This is optimism and solutions, more than an ignorant snob like you has to offer, saying that reform is impossible. Saying that reform is impossible means we should just comply with the status quo. No offense, but you can fuck off fascist! I know I said that ignorant name-calling is bad, but reason obviously won't work with you. But hey, you're free to feel as you please. I won't bother you anymore. Go ahead and be free to feel that everything in this country sucks and that people should let the status quo and the cronies and fascist get away with everything and we shouldn't do anything but complain. Millions of Americans though, unlike you, are gonna be actually stepping up and challenging this, and we could really use your help. Hope you'll change your mind and see the light. Lata!

You know GRINGO, I have a theory.. 28.Jun.2004 13:12


That you're actually a Bush supporter, simply trying to get progressives not to vote so Bush will win, or trying to give progressives a bad name. If the second one is your goal, keep it up.

"We're not a plutocracy (least not yet)"???!?????????!?????????????? 28.Jun.2004 20:21


plu*toc*ra*cy Pronunciation Key (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu*toc*ra*cies
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
[Greek ploutokrati : ploutos, wealth; see pleu- in Indo-European Roots + -krati, -cracy.]
pluto*crat (plt-krt) n.
pluto*cratic or pluto*crati*cal adj.
pluto*crati*cal*ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


\Plu*toc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? wealth + ? to be strong, to rule, fr.? strength: cf. F. plutocratie.] A form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the wealthy classes; government by the rich; also, a controlling or influential class of rich men.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996


n : a political system governed by the wealthy people
Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A Plutocracy is a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth).

The influence of wealth on governance can be expressed either via the wealthy classes directly governing, or (more typically) by the wealthy classes using money to control the government. This control can be exerted positively (by financial "contributions" or in some cases, bribes) or negatively by refusing to financially support the government (refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, etc).

There have not been many examples of a "true" plutocracy in history as such, although they typically emerge as one of the first governing systems within a territory after a period of anarchy. Plutocracy is closely related to Aristocracy  http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy as a form of government, as generally wealth and nobility have been closely associated throughout history.

In the present era, there are numerous cases of wealthy individuals exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favourable legislation. Most western partisan democracies permit the raising of funds by the partisan organisations, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives, however it would be a bit idealistic to believe that no politicians are influenced by these "contributions". The more cynical might describe these donations as "bribes", although legally they are not.

See also:

Pareto principle (on unequal distribution of wealth)
corporate police state


"Plutocracy" Defined

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Plutocracy may also have social and cultural aspects. Thus, in Democracy for the Few  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm political scientist Michael Parenti is led to comment "American capitalism represents more than just an economic system; it is an entire cultural and social order, a plutocracy, a system of rule that is mostly by and for the rich. Most universities and colleges, publishing houses, mass circulation magazines, newspapers, television and radio stations, professional sports teams, foundations, churches, private museums, charity organizations, and hospitals are organized as corporations, ruled by boards of trustees (or directors or regents) composed overwhelmingly of affluent businesspeople. These boards exercise final judgment over all institutional matters."

The question of whether or not the United States could be said to be a plutocracy is discussed at length in Who Rules America  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm by sociologist G. William Domhoff. There Domhoff remarks: "The idea that a relatively fixed group of privileged people might shape the economy and government for their own benefit goes against the American grain. Nevertheless, this book argues that the owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and away the dominant power figures in the United States. Their corporations, banks, and agribusinesses come together as a corporate community that dominates the federal government in Washington. Their real estate, construction, and land development companies form growth coalitions that dominate most local governments."

The argument to the effect that the US is a functional plutocracy (that is, that the wealthy exercise a preponderance of American political power) is different from, enormously better documented, and altogether more credible, than claims to the effect that there exists a small circle of conspirators bent on ruling the world, claims for which no credible evidence exists. (Domhoff explicitly disavows the existence of any such conspiracy.)


See the resource on the Bush cabinet, with links that illustrate its plutocratic nature
Go to the Essay on Politics
Go to the PL Political Field Guide
Return to the PL Site Map

Some other enlightening and useful links:

Corporate Capitalist Plutocracy

The Plutocratic Presidency, 1789—Present Day

The Corporate Domination of American Culture and Politics

Net Worth (including Heinz Ketchup wife) = $850 MILLION
Net Worth (including Heinz Ketchup wife) = $850 MILLION

My head's clear 28.Jun.2004 22:23


I acknowledge that the wealthy do have most of the power, not to mention most of the politicians. I don't disagree. But we still have democratic rights, even if we're dangling on to them by a thread, and we still have some people in congress who do actually serve the people (Barbara Lee who votes against every single war and military operation, Dennis Kucinich, etc). Though we are certainly losing democratic rights under this administration, no doubt. But I do have faith that we can begin a road towards pure democracy, starting this election.

"But we still have democratic rights" - yeah, right 28.Jun.2004 23:19


We have NO democracy whatsoever. Yet you propagate the harmful idea that voting is effective, dooming millions of human hours to the void of electoral politics - the do-nothing "activism" championed by the ruling class itself.

You have no proof whatsoever that we are a democracy.

You are authoritarian. When I don't provide a cohesive program for you to dutifully follow, you get upset. Then when I tell you to do anything effective, you cry "authoritarian" because I'm "telling you what to do." You really are a piece of work.

I am for doing SOMETHING, not the NOTHING (voting) that you suggest.

Don't get your undies in a bunch about Bush winning - it's out of your or my hands. We have NO part in this decision. The ruling elite consists of competing cabals, and the Billionaires For Kerry seem to have the upper hand over the Billionaires For Bush. Either way, they'll retain their murderous grip on their power and money. Bush's people have a better hold on the mechanics of voting, i.e. the fraudulent electronic voting systems that uncannily "elect" Republicans whenever they are used. "Coincidentally" ES&S and Diebold are Republican-owned companies. Go figure. It's who COUNTS the votes that matter, not how many voted for who. Didn't the 2000 selection teach you anything?

Chomsky is a smart guy. That doesn't make him an omniscient god though, does it? Kill your hero worship for three seconds and try to wrap your TV-fried brain areound the fact that even geniuses make false assumptions based on inaccurate information. All I am is one human making sense of the world. It's a matter of checking your sources and being able to trust your intellect. I don;t appreciate people blowing smoke up my ass about not wanting to be "pessimistic" as if our personal feelings have anything to do with how the power structure in the US and the world behaves. It'
s not about you, or me, or our relative levels of optimism and pessimism. Get real, Adam. And read up about how effective the pacifists really were. Gandhi and MLK didn't make true changes. They were reformists, which is why they are celbrated by the very establishment they strove against.

Look GRINGO 29.Jun.2004 00:03

Adammonte9000 adammonte9000@aol.com

"Gandhi and MLK didn't make true changes"

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

"You are authoritarian. When I don't provide a cohesive program for you to dutifully follow, you get upset"

Yeah right. First off that's not the definition of authoritarian. Second, I get upset when people become ignorant, like you. that statement you jsut made is in itself ignorant. Anybody who knows me knows I'm anything but authoritarian, and have always preached against authoritarianism. But hey, you have to resort to calling me one when you can't debate. I understand. I disagree with you so you call me authoritarian. By your definition, that itself makes YOU authoritarian.

"We have NO democracy whatsoever"

I'm sorry you feel that way. In that case you should leave the country. Me, I'm staying to try to make things better. and we do have a bill of rights and the right to vote, and I know you're going to say "it's how the votes are counted that matters". Correct. That's why we need to go back to the old fashioned way of voting with pap

"Chomsky is a smart guy. That doesn't make him an omniscient god though, does it? Kill your hero worship for three seconds and try to wrap your TV-fried brain areound the fact that even geniuses make false assumptions based on inaccurate information."

I don't worship Chomsky, that's more ignorant rhetoric. I was just saying that it's dumb that you look for the most insignificant reasons to hate him. As for your "TV-fried brain", that right there is childish and ignorant. I'm no more "TV-fried" than you, I don't even watch the news. But hey, I don't interfere with your pointless rhetoric. I'm sorry you can't do anything more than that, and I'm sorry you hate anybody who disagrees with you even slightly.

Look GRINGO, I actually agree with most of what you say, we just differ in how to solve the problem. And for these reasons you have to insult me and defame me and attack me personally is truly sad. I hope you'll change and get an open-mind, but I won't count on it. I'll say this, progressives won't get anywhere by being hateful and ignorant like you're acting right now. I'm done talking to you though, I obviously can't convence you. If you have anything else to say, feel free to just e-mail it to me.

I mean seriously! 29.Jun.2004 00:09


What's the problem? All I said was you should vote GRINGO and you bite my head off, call me names, and start spouting hateful stuff. Jeez. By the way, Gandhi liberated a whole nation peacrfully and MLK started a whole human rights revolution which is more than you can say you've done. Just proves you're wrong. They obviously made real changes as anybody with half a brain will tell you. Oh, one more thing..

"And read up about how effective the pacifists really were"

You claim to be anti-war, yet now you attack pacifism. Nuff said.

Just remember this... 29.Jun.2004 00:26

Adammonte9000 adammonte9000@aol.com

We all agree on this site (most people at least) that revolution is necessary to overthrow the plutocratic corporate cronies that control our system. We're all anti-authoritarians who want democracy to flourish. In order for change to occur, I just think it needs to start from the inside. The system needs to be destroyed from the inside out, and that's why I'm voting. I hope you people will do so as well, but if you don't I'll understand. Just remember you can't sit back and pray for revolution to come. You need to make it happen, and you need to get involved to make it happen, because democracy is based on people taking control.

Re: Somebody1234 29.Jun.2004 11:10

get real

I had the same suspician.

I only respond in kind, Adam 29.Jun.2004 17:28


Countless times you make posts that are outbursts of insults, Adam. Can't take what you give out? It's OK: countless dupes fall for your ABB nonsense.

As far as me being a shill for Bush, just search my name within PDX IMC and see what you find. I hate Bush. But I hate Kerry too. And voting is a sham and a scam. Apparently, whenever anyone disagrees with you ABBers, then they must work for the Bush, and also they must be a liar?

Adam, point to even ONE revolution that started "from the inside". That reformist pablum ignores the fact that the system changes people. People NEVER change the system "from within." I do not simply "sit back and pray" that a revolution will happen, but I don't want the FBI on me after some stupid posting I make on an IMC either.

Gandhi liberated nothing: he was pushed aside teh independance movement when it gained momentum. There was a violent contingent to that independance movement all along and they got sick of Gandhi's unrealistic worship of ancient ways and his dogmatic religiousness as well. Read up on Gandhi sometime instead of believing Hollywood's propaganda about him:

and Oh yeah... 29.Jun.2004 17:35


Concerning MLK, he was ONLy effective because of people like Malcolm X. And MLK only made the news when he made vague threats of violence. Read up on MLK. There were over 70 riots by blacks in big cities during MLKs most effective epriod. Peaceful types never get anything done without the threat of violence from those who are prepared to defend themselves. This forces authorities to deal with the peaceful one instead of the angry one. Pacifists have rebels to thank for all their political victories.

And I am most assuredly NOT anti-ALL-war. I am very much pro-class-war. And it will happen, sooner or later. I am pro-revolution. Worldwide. Yet I am anti-internacince-war. I am against nations fighting nations for the typical capitalist reasons they fight for. I am anti-war when it comes to the US waging wars, since every single war the US has waged was an imperialist war of conquest. There is no conflict whatsoever between being against the wars this country wages and also being against pacifism.

I respect how you feel GRINGO 29.Jun.2004 23:53

Adammonte9000 adammonte9000@aol.com

And I agree with much that you say, though we just disagree on methods and such. And like I said, it's easy to talk about revolution and all, but it's just a word and pointless if you don't say how to accomplish it. And I didn't insult you except in response to you, and I won't insult you now. And the fact is Gandhi did lead a whole nation to independence from the British Empire without war or violence, history speaks for itself. But hey, you don't have to admire Gandhi, nobody said you did. As far as MLK, I think most people will agree he was much more successful than Malcom X. Finally, like you, I am pro-"revolution" as you are. But in the words of John Lennon "when you talk about distruction, don't you know that you can count me out". Violence leads to more violence, as we've seen in Iraq and in the Israel Palestine conflict. And if we anti-war people take part in it, we become the very thing we fight against. That's just my opinion. Though in the end I think many your goals and mine are similar.