Farheen Hakeem's Political Courage

Voters in south Minneapolis district have the right to know where their candidates stand on the issues. Only Farheen Hakeem has the audacity to stand up for what she believes in and how she will fight for her constituents. This is taken from her Political Courage Test at VoteSmart.org:

Abortion Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding abortion.
	a) Abortions should always be illegal.
X	b) Abortions should always be legal.
	c) Abortions should be legal only within the first trimester of pregnancy.
	d) Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
	e) Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.
	f) Abortions should be subject to a mandatory waiting period.
	g) Require clinics to give parental notification before performing abortions on minors.
	h) Other or expanded principles

Budget and Tax Issues

State Budget: Indicate what state funding levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one level per category, you can use a number more than once.
Slightly Increase	a) Education (Higher)
Greatly Increase	b) Education (K-12)
Maintain Status	c) Emergency preparedness
Greatly Increase	d) Environment
Maintain Status	e) Health care
Slightly Decrease	f) Law enforcement
Maintain Status	g) Transportation and highway infrastructure
Greatly Increase	h) Welfare
Greatly Increase	i) Other or expanded categories
For Health care, I would like to join with other legislators to bring Single Payer Universal Health care to Minnesota.
State Taxes: Indicate what state tax levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one level per category, you can use a number more than once.
Greatly Increase	a) Alcohol taxes
Slightly Increase	b) Cigarette taxes
Greatly Increase	c) Corporate taxes
Slightly Increase	d) Gasoline taxes
Maintain Status	e) Income taxes (incomes below $75,000)
Slightly Increase	f) Income taxes (incomes above $75,000)
Greatly Decrease	g) Property taxes
Maintain Status	h) Sales taxes
Slightly Increase	i) Vehicle taxes
	j) Other or expanded categories
Undecided	1) Should state sales taxes be extended to Internet sales?
Yes	2) Should accounts such as a "rainy day" fund be used to balance the state budget?
No	3) Should fee increases be used to balance the state budget?
	4) Other or expanded principles

Campaign Finance and Government Reform Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding campaign finance and government reform.
Yes	a) Do you support limiting the number of terms for Minnesota governors?
Yes	b) Do you support limiting the number of terms for Minnesota state senators and representatives?
c) Do you support limiting the following types of contributions to state legislative candidates?
Yes	1) Individual
Yes	2) PAC
Yes	3) Corporate
Yes	4) Political Parties
Yes	d) Do you support requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information?
Yes	e) Do you support imposing spending limits on state-level political campaigns?
No	f) Should Minnesota participate in the federal REAL ID program?
Yes	g) Should Minnesota allow homeowners whose mortgage is in foreclosure a one-year deferment on their primary residence?
h) Other or expanded principles
No Answer

Crime Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding crime.
	a) Increase state funds for construction of state prisons and hiring of additional prison staff.
	b) Establish the death penalty in Minnesota.
X	c) Support programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills and job-placement assistance when released.
X	d) Implement penalties other than incarceration for certain non-violent offenders.
X	e) Decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
	f) Minors accused of a violent crime should be prosecuted as adults.
	g) Support state and local law enforcement officials enforcing federal immigration laws.
X	h) Support hate crime legislation.
	i) Other or expanded principles

Education Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding education.
X	a) Support state funding of universal pre-K programs.
	b) Support federal education standards and testing requirements for K-12 students (No Child Left Behind).
X	c) Support state education standards and testing requirements for K-12 students.
	d) Support requiring public schools to administer high school exit exams.
	e) Allow parents to use vouchers to send their children to any public school.
	f) Allow parents to use vouchers to send their children to any private or religious school.
X	g) Provide state funding to increase teacher salaries.
	h) Support using a merit pay system for teachers.
X	i) Provide state funding for tax incentives and financial aid to help make college more affordable.
	j) Support allowing illegal immigrant high school graduates of Minnesota to pay in-state tuition at public universities.
	k) Other or expanded principles
I support J, but I would term it to be "Support allowing undocumented high school graduates of Minnesota to pay in-state tuition at public universities.

Employment Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding employment.
X	a) Increase funding for state job-training programs that re-train displaced workers and teach skills needed in today's job market.
	b) Reduce state government regulations on the private sector.
	c) Provide low interest loans and tax credits for starting, expanding, or relocating businesses.
	d) Provide tax credits for businesses that provide child care for children in low-income working families.
X	e) Increase state funds to provide child care for children in low-income working families.
X	f) Increase the state minimum wage.
X	g) Support laws that prevent employers from dismissing employees at will.
	h) Support financial punishments for those who knowingly employ illegal immigrants.
	i) Support increased work requirements for able-bodied welfare recipients.
	j) Increase funding for employment and job training programs for welfare recipients.
	k) Other or expanded principles

Environment and Energy Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding the environment and energy.
X	a) Promote increased use of alternative fuel technology.
	b) Support increased production of traditional domestic energy sources (e.g. coal, natural gas, oil, etc).
	c) Support providing financial incentives to farms that produce biofuel crops.
X	d) Use state funds to clean up former industrial and commercial sites that are contaminated, unused, or abandoned.
	e) Support funding for improvements to Minnesota's power generating and transmission facilities.
X	f) Support funding for open space preservation.
X	g) Limit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
X	h) Enact environmental regulations even if they are stricter than federal law.
	i) Other or expanded principles
I would support increased production of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. I would also support funding for improvements to Minnesota's power generating and transmission facilities if it was to reduce our carbon footprint on the planet.

Gun Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding guns.
Yes	a) Should background checks be required on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows?
No	b) Should citizens be allowed to carry concealed guns?
Yes	c) Should a license be required for gun possession?
Undecided	d) Do you support current levels of enforcement of existing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?
Undecided	e) Do you support current state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?
	f) Other or expanded principles

Health Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding health.
	a) Ensure that citizens have access to basic health care through managed care, insurance reforms, or state-funded care where necessary.
	b) Guaranteed medical care to all citizens is not a responsibility of state government.
	c) Limit the amount of damages that can be awarded in medical malpractice lawsuits.
	d) Allow patients to sue their HMOs.
	e) Require hospitals and labs to release reports on infections that are a risk to public health, while not compromising patient confidentiality.
	f) Legalize physician assisted suicide in Minnesota.
	g) Support allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients for medicinal purposes.
	h) Other or expanded principles
I support single payer universal health care.

Social Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding social issues.
Yes	a) Should Minnesota recognize civil unions between same-sex couples?
Yes	b) Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?
Yes	c) Should Minnesota provide state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples?
No	d) Do you support a moment of silence in public schools?
Undecided	e) Do you support voluntary prayer in public schools?
Yes	f) Do you support sexual education programs that include information on abstinence, contraceptives, and HIV/STD prevention methods?
No	g) Do you support abstinence-only sexual education programs?
Yes	h) Should the state government consider race and gender in state government contracting and hiring decisions?
Yes	i) Do you support affirmative action in public college admissions?
Yes	j) Should Minnesota continue affirmative action programs?
Yes	k) Do you support state funding of stem cell research?
Yes	l) Do you support state funding of embryonic stem cell research?
No	m) Do you support allowing pharmacists who conscientiously object to emergency contraception to refuse to dispense it?
n) Other or expanded principles
I am confused to what "e) Do you support voluntary prayer in public schools?" Students should have the right to pray in schools if they choose, but the school administrators should not require students to attend prayer. For example, is a student wished to do Friday Prayers, which happen at lunch time, the school should not stop the student, and meet their needs. Yet, a teacher can not require all of the students in the class to pray along with the student.
Legislative Priorities
Please explain in a total of 100 words or less, your top two or three priorities if elected. If they require additional funding for implementation, please explain how you would obtain this funding.
The big challenge that I see in the Legislature is to balance the 2 billion dollar deficit without cutting programs and services to the poor. As your State Representative, I would advocate that housing, jobs, youth programming, and programs to end poverty are an investment, not an expense. I will fight to secure general funds to sustain programs for education and social services, and work beyond party lines to create solutions to balance the budget, find funding for community programs, and bring landmark legislation to law. [ These taken from VoteSmart.org Farheen's primary opponent has this listed on their site: Mr. Hayden repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff. I consider Mr. Hayden's inaction to be yet another sign of local DFL corruption, ineptitude, and not truly standing for anything but getting elected. - KC ]

Green and Democrat: What's the Difference?

The Green Party & Green candidates compared to Democratic leadership &
Democratic candidates on important issues

Green Presidential Candidates: Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent
Mesplay, Kat Swift Democratic

Presidential Candidates: Hillary Clinton,
Barack Obama


The Iraq War

Green Party & Green candidates
-- opposed the invasion and occupation from the beginning
-- favor immediate withdrawal of all US troops and contracted personnel
from Iraq
-- call for Congress to cut off funding for the war
-- seek to hold the Bush Administration responsible for deceiving the
public with false claims that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, posed a
threat to the US and to Iraq's own neighbors, had conspired with al Qaeda,
and played a role in the 9/11 attacks
-- oppose 'benchmarks' that would allow US and UK corporations to take
control over most Iraqi oil resources

Democratic leadership, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
-- supported the Iraq War from the beginning and believed Bush
Administration lies; voted with Republicans to surrender Congress's war
power to the White House (Obama was not in Congress yet and initially
opposed the war, but softened his opposition after election to the US
Senate)
-- continued to give President Bush funding for the occupation after
gaining control of Congress: both Clinton and Obama voted for funding
bills
-- offer delayed and vague timetables for troop withdrawal, and would
leave some troops in Iraq
-- support 'benchmarks' giving US and UK corporations control over Iraqi
oil, which would require continued US troop presence in Iraq to protect
corporate interests

Foreign Policy

Green Party & Green candidates
-- strongly oppose President Bush's threat to attack Iran
-- support an end to the US occupation of Afghanistan, opposed invasion
-- support cutoff of military aid to Israel, demand US pressure on Israel
to end the brutal occupation of Palestine and suppression of Palestinian
and Israeli Arab human rights, in accord with international law and UN
directives
-- seek an end to the US embargo of Cuba
-- favor nonviolent solutions to international conflict

Democratic leadership, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
-- have signed on to President Bush's threat to attack Iran (both Clinton
and Obama have said that an attack on Iran is not off the table)
-- support continued US occupation and war on Afghanistan
-- do not criticize Israel, dismiss international law and UN directives on
Israeli apartheid and occupation of Palestinian lands
-- favor continued embargo of Cuba
-- have supported most Bush foreign policy agenda: invasion and threats of
invasion; broken international treaties; contemptuous treatment of US
allies

Global Warming, Energy, & the Environment

Green Party & Green candidates
-- call for far-reaching short-term and long-term cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions
-- favor major conservation programs to cut US energy consumption
-- seek widespread economic reorganization and millions of new jobs in
conservation and conversion to safe, clean energy sources
-- oppose nuclear energy, which creates huge amounts of toxic waste and
multiple security risks
-- oppose widespread conversion to bio-fuels that require agricultural land
needed for food production
-- seek restrictions and oversight on genetically modified organisms,
especially food

Democratic leadership, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
-- favor modest long-term cuts in greenhouse gas emissions
-- don't talk about conservation and cuts in consumption
-- support nuclear energy and biofuel production (Obama receives major
campaign contributions from nuclear and ethanol industries and supports
their goals)
-- support or are silent on genetically modified organisms and food

Impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney

Green Party & Green candidates
-- endorse impeachment of Bush and Cheney for high crimes and
misdemeanors: deception and manipulation of intelligence to justify the
invasion of Iraq; cover-ups of information about impending 9/11 attacks;
use of torture; denial of habeas corpus and due process; warrantless
surveillance of US citizens; hundreds of 'signing statements' to exempt
the President from executing over 1,000 federal laws; censoring and
tampering with scientific research to conceal the seriousness of global
warming; responsibility for the deaths of as many as one million Iraqi
civilians and over 4,000 US servicemembers

Democratic leadership, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
-- oppose and block motions for impeachment, despite Bush Administration's
numerous crimes and abuses of power

Health Care Reform

Green Party & Green candidates
-- support Single-Payer National Health Care (Medicare For All), which
would provide all Americans with quality health care regardless of ability
to pay, employment, age, or prior medical condition: Single-Payer will
remove corporate HMOs and insurance firms from control over health care,
give Americans choice of health care provider, provide no-cost or low-cost
prescriptions based on need, and ease the burden on physicians and other
health care providers

Democratic leadership, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
-- oppose Single-Payer
-- favor health care reform plans that leave profit-making HMOs and
insurance firms in control over health care
-- take hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporate HMOs, insurance
firms, and pharmaceutical manufacturers

War on Drugs & the Justice System

Green Party & Green candidates
-- oppose the War on Drugs, calling it a war on African American, Latino,
poor, and young people
-- favor decriminalization (especially for marijuana), medical treatment
for drug abuse instead of prosecution
-- oppose privatization of prisons, which require increasing numbers of
inmates for corporate profits: the US has the highest incarceration rate
in the world
-- call for abolition of the death penalty

Democratic leadership, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
-- support the War on Drugs
-- either support or are silent on privatization of prisons
-- support the death penalty

Labor & Economic Justice

Green Party & Green candidates
-- oppose 'free trade' agreements and unelected international trade
authorities (NAFTA, FTAA, WTO, GATT, etc.) that give corporate power and
profit priority over labor rights and environmental protections
-- call for repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act (restricting union organizing),
support democratic workplaces
-- favor a strong safety net for middle- and low-income working people,
support for small businesses and local economies
-- support human rights protection for undocumented immigrants: Greens
call the flood of new immigrants a result of economic policies and
agreements (e.g., NAFTA) that impoverish people and drive them across
borders

Democratic leadership, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
-- have supported and voted for 'free trade' agreements and unelected
international trade authorities
-- are silent on Taft-Hartley, don't deliver for working people despite
Election Year endorsements from unions
-- support economic policies that favor the wealthy, major corporations,
and Wall Street, with limited aid for poor and middle-income Americans
(Clinton and Obama support the 1996 Welfare Reform Act signed by Bill
Clinton, which severely hurt millions of Americans, especially women,
during the recent economic downturn)
-- favor policies that scapegoat immigrants for economic problems

Democracy and Fair Elections

Green Party & Green candidates
-- take no money from corporate contributors
-- led effort to expose Republican obstruction of Ohio voters and
manipulation of votes in 2004: Green presidential nominee David Cobb (with
Libertarian nominee Michael Badnarik) initiated the Ohio recount campaign
and raised money for legal fees
-- seek public financing of elections, free time on public airwaves for
all candidates, repeal of ballot access laws restricting third party and
independent candidates
-- support instant runoff voting, proportional representation, and other
reforms to ensure democracy in US elections
-- support statehood for the District of Columbia, with self-government
and full representation in Congress equal to other states

Democratic leadership, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
-- take hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporate contributors
-- had minimal response to election irregularities in Ohio, minimal
reaction to the Conyers Commission's evidence that the 2004 election may
have been stolen: only one Democratic Senator (Barbara Boxer) stood up to
support African American Congress-members' protest at Senate's confirmation
of Bush reelection in January 2005
-- are silent on many needed election reforms: Democrats and Republicans
together worked to pass laws limiting third party and independent
participation in elections
-- favor a single voting seat in the US House for DC (statehood for DC was
removed from the Democratic Party platform in 2004)

Human Rights & Social Justice

Green Party & Green candidates
-- oppose the USA Patriot Act and favor repeal
-- support full and equal recognition for same-sex marriage
-- support reparations for the descendants of African American slaves in
the US

Democratic leadership, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
-- support the USA Patriot Act: Clinton voted for passage; Clinton and
Obama voted for reauthorization
-- favor limited and unequal recognition for same-sex marriage
-- oppose or have no position on reparations for the descendents of slaves

Produced by: Scott McLarty a member of the Lavender Greens of Minnesota.

Elliot Spitzer and America's Ethical Perversity

by Rabbi Michael Lerner

The cross-the-political-spectrum attacks on Elliot Spitzer and the intensity of the demands that he resign his office show just how far the Right-wing sexual moralizing has been able to trump any other kind of ethical reasoning in American society.

Going to a prostitute is legal in some states and some countries around the world, and is often the very arrangement that saves families from splitting up whose sexual energies have diminished but whose love is intact. It's not uncommon for men (and now increasingly women as well) who have achieved great power in our society by adopting an outer show of ruthless pursuit of power and influence (even, as in Spitzer's case, if the power is aimed at pursuing laudable ends) to feel a deep emptiness and loneliness that is not addressed by friends or spouse, and hence to seek some kind of outside connection no matter how superficial that is not bound by previous rules and roles. Nevertheless, I and many others in the religious and spiritual world oppose that practice when it involves adultery or prostitution, because it depends on the objectification of another human being, so that sex is disconnected in ways that it should not be from a significant encounter with the spirit of God in the other or a deep recognition that is the only real way to overcome existential or situational alienation.

Moreover, the trade in women for sexual purposes has frequently led to rape and abuse and the kidnapping of young women who are sold into sexual slavery. All of these outrageous practices are abhorrent and should be challenged. The flaunting of sexuality in the media, and the implicit message that the only real satisfaction comes from having the most physically attractive people as sexual partners, not only generates huge dissatisfaction even as it allows corporate advertise to become predators manipulating our personal sense of inadequacy to sell their products, but also generates desires that feed the sexual trade in women. Given this larger social context, until sexual satisfaction is so broadly available in our society that no one has to pay for it and so deeply tied to love that no one is objectified in the process, this kind of exploitation of women and degradation of sex is likely to continue. All of these practices foster the sexual predators of the contemporary world.

So Elliot Spitzer deserves to be critiqued and ought to be doing deep atonement for what he did. His previous moral arrogance and willingness when he had power to do so to prosecute others for their participation in creating prostitution rings makes him an easy target. We, in turn, might practice the forgiveness that our religious and spiritual traditions preach, particularly those of us who have been willing to honeslty face how flawed we ourselves are, and how at times we ourselves fail to embody in our actual practice with others the values that we publicly espouse. Humility and compassion are also part of the path of a spiritual progressive.

But the intensity of the critique of the N.Y. governor, tied with the demand that he resign, shows more about American society's ethical perversity than about Spitzer.

The President of the U.S. and the Vice President, working in concert with several other high ranking officers of our government, lied and distorted to get us involved in a war that has led to the death of over a million Iraqis, the displacement of 3 million more, the death of 4,000 Americans and the wounding of tens of thousands more. After token opposition in Congress, our elected representatives have overwhelmingly passed budgets funding this war, rather than refuse to fund any military projects until the President stopped the war and withdrew the troops.

Meanwhile, our government has overtly engaged in torture, wiretapping of our phones, and violation of our human rights and the rights of people around the world. Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Charles Schumer votes to confirm as Attonrey General a right-wing judge who refused to repudiate these crimes.

The U.S. government has rejected every attempt to implement the Kyoto environmental agreements or to work out new agreements sufficiently strong to reverse environmental destruction that is certain to lead to new levels of flooding particularly in several poor countries around the world. The consequence: tens of millions of deaths.

The Clinton Administration pushed, along with corporate support, a set of trade agreements that have devastated the farmers of many developing countries, forcing many off their farms and into city slums where their daughters and sons are often sold into sexual slavery. The global economic system we have fostered has led to increasing gaps between the rich and the poor, so that over one out of every three people on the planet lives on less than $2 a day, 1.5 billion live on less than one dollar a day, and over 15,000 children die every day from malnutrition-related diseases and inadequate availability of medicine that is hoarded by the rich countries who can afford the prices made to ensure huge profits to the pharmaceutical industry.

Health insurance companies and private medical profiteers are doing all they can to ensure that there will be no health care for tens of millions of Americans, unless that is provided in ways that guarantee corporate super-profits and thereby guarantee that the cost of health care paid through taxes will be huge and create anger at all government social welfare and well-being programs, leading to their likely de-funding.
People in the US have faced severe economic crises on a regional and soon on a national level because corporations move their centers of production to countries in Asia where they can exploit workers with less government or union interference and where they can destroy the environment with less societal restraints. Wild to achieve greater profits, corporations and the rich have managed to support politicians who lower the taxes on the rich, in the process bankrupting the public sector or severely reducing its ability to provide enough funds for quality education, health care, libraries, public transportation, and social welfare.

That there is no outcry for these government officials and corporate leaders to resign immediately or be impeached, that there is no moral outrage at the entire system that produces this impact, is America's ethical perversity. Instead, the only crime against humanity that the media takes seriously and the politicians fear is being exposed for personal sexual immorality. While everyone basks in their own self-righteous demands on Spitzer, we all allow media and elected officials to fundamentally distort our ethical vision and play out our morality on the smallest of possible stages while ignoring the global and personal consequences of our larger ethical failures.

Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun magazine www.tikkun.org <http://www.tikkun.org> , Chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives www.spiritualprogressives.org <http://www.spiritualprogressives.org> , rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue-without-walls in San Francisco and Berkeley, and author of The Left Hand of God. He welcomes comments at RabbiLerner@tiikkun.org

If you agree with this perspective, call your local media and ask that it be presented alongside the mainstream views. And help us continue to provide alternative analyses by joining the Network of Spiritual Progressives (www.spiritualprogressives.org) and urging your friends to do so as well!

Lay Off Ralph NaderThird-party candidates are people, too.

By Timothy Noah

I have never understood why people get upset whenever Ralph Nader runs for president.

The principal indictment is that Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election by drawing votes from Gore in Florida. Gore lost Florida to George W. Bush by 537 votes. Nader received 97,488 votes. National exit polls indicated that had Nader not been on the ballot, 47 percent of Nader voters would have voted for Gore, 21 percent would have voted for Bush, and 32 percent would have stayed home. Therefore, if Nader hadn't run, then Gore would have won.

Well, sure. But in an election this preposterously close, you can blame the outcome on almost anything. In a Feb. 24 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Nader pointed out that seven other third-party candidates on the Florida ballot outpolled Bush's 537-vote margin, too. These included James Harris of the Socialist Workers Party (563), David McReynolds of the Socialist Party (622), and Monica Moorehead of the Workers World Party (1,804). Granted, we don't have exit poll numbers on these candidates, who stood much further left of the mainstream than Nader. But it's doubtful their supporters would have defaulted to the GOP. Should we vilify them for costing Gore the election, too?

Nationwide, Nader won 2.9 million votes in 2000. Four years later, he won only 466,000 (PDF), which, as Steve Kornacki pointed out in the Feb. 25 New York Observer ("Who's Afraid of Ralph Nader?") is much closer to the 685,000 he won in his little-remembered 1996 bid and is probably a truer expression of his natural level of support. (In 2000, Kornacki argues, Nader got an unusual boost from independent voters stranded by the defeats of Bill Bradley and John McCain in the primaries.) Nobody particularly objected to Nader's 1996 bid, because he didn't get very many votes. In 2000, though, Nader was condemned, in effect, for being too popular. He was, the liberal consensus pronounced, on an "ego trip." (The word/phrase combination Nader, ego trip, and president yields 3,200 hits on Google.) He was tarnishing his legacy as a champion of government and corporate accountability. That criticism has stuck, even though Nader has once again reverted to being a fringe candidate who poses no apparent threat to the Democratic nominee. He's damned if he wins too many votes, and he's damned if he wins too few.

I've never cast a presidential vote for Nader, and I never will. Nor do I agree with Nader that the similarities between the Republican and Democratic parties render superfluous any choice between the two. But as someone who has observed (and admired) Nader all my life, I don't doubt for a second that Nader sincerely believes that. He's never remained satisfied with Democratic politicians, even those with whom he enjoyed a warm working relationship before they entered politics. (The only possible exception is Mark Green, who may have maintained Nader's affections by losing a series of bids for high office: the House, the Senate, the New York mayoralty.) Nader doesn't believe in compromise, and, yes, that would be a problem if he ever really did become president. But his stubbornness has been only an asset in his long career as an advocate, and I'm not so sure it's a liability in his newer career as a perpetual candidate. In the current election, Nader is the sole presidential candidate you're likely to hear about (now that Dennis Kucinich has dropped out) who stands forthrightly for adopting a single-payer solution to the health-care crisis, a stance universally regarded as politically impractical. But single payer is the only solution of much practical value in the real world, as evidenced by the experience of nearly all advanced democracies. If Nader does no more in the 2008 election than oblige major-party candidates to consider that stubborn reality for five minutes, he'll have done us all a big favor.

source: http://www.slate.com/id/2185614/

The Obama Craze: Count Me Out

by Matt Gonzalez

Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.

Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn’t much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama’s voting record, and I’m afraid to say I’m not just uninspired: I’m downright fearful. Here's why:

This is a candidate who says he’s going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.

But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to rein in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.

THE WAR IN IRAQ

Let’s start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.

First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”

Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he’s done just that.

Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of “Operation Iraqi Liberation” the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.

And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman “his mentor” and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called “Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War.” Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?

Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn’t actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.

At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to “carry out our counter-terrorism activities there” which includes “striking at al Qaeda in Iraq.” What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to “redeploy” the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama’s plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.

This is hardly a position to get excited about.

CLASS ACTION REFORM:

In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts.

By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the “reform” was a thinly-veiled “special interest extravaganza” that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, “Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers.”

Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: “On its face, the class-action bill is mere procedural tinkering, transferring from state to federal court actions involving more than $5 million where any plaintiff is from a different state from the defendant company. But federal courts are much more hostile to class actions than their state counterparts; such cases tend to be rooted in the finer points of state law, in which federal judges are reluctant to dabble. And even if federal judges do take on these suits, with only 678 of them on the bench (compared with 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets will grow. Thus, the bill will make class actions – most of which involve discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations – all but impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits were filed against Wal-Mart for allegedly forcing employees to work "off the clock," four state courts certified these suits as class actions. Not a single federal court did so, although the practice probably involves hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide.”

Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it harder for working-class people to have their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?

CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES:

Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.

Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling too high. His explanation isn’t credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative, and didn’t put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found objectionable.

Why wouldn’t Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him. For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome.

LIMITING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES:

These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama aligns himself with Republican Party interests aren’t new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully recover for pain and suffering or for punitive damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were already empowered to adjust awards when appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court had previously ruled such limits on tort reform violated the state constitution.

In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering with patients’ full recovery for tortious conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting patients’ economic recovery. Rather than simply mandating disclosure, Obama’s solution is to trade what should be mandated for something that should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured patient.

MINING LAW OF 1872:

In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by Ulysses Grant, allows mining companies to pay a nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine for hardrock minerals like gold, silver, and copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits for mining hardrock on public lands is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion a year according to Earthworks, a group that monitors the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when it comes to lobbying: an estimated $60 million between 1998-2004 according to The Center on Public Integrity. And it appears to be paying off, yet again.

The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 would have finally overhauled the law and allowed American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers over $50 million, and addressed health and safety concerns in the 11 affected western states.

Later it came to light that one of Obama’s key advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies (CBS News “Obama’s Position On Mining Law Questioned. Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him,” November 14, 2007).

REGULATING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:

The New York Times reported that, while campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama boasted that he had passed a bill requiring nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive leaks. This came after residents of his home state of Illinois complained they were not told of leaks that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corporation.

The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the bill to be amended in Committee by Senate Republicans, replacing language mandating reporting with verbiage that merely offered guidance to regulators on how to address unreported leaks. The story noted that even this version of Obama’s bill failed to pass the Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming to have passed the legislation. The February 3, 2008 The New York Times article titled “Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate” by Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of Obama’s constituents, which was hardly enthusiastic about Obama’s legislative efforts:

"Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it."

As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: “Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.”

ENERGY POLICY:

On energy policy, it turns out Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow. It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are required to produce eight barrels of corn ethanol, according to research by the Cato Institute. Ethanol’s impact on climate change is nominal and isn’t “green” according to Alisa Gravitz, Co-op America executive director. “It simply isn’t a major improvement over gasoline when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.” A 2006 University of Minnesota study by Jason Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. (There’s even concern that a reliance on corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.)

So why would Obama be touting this as a solution to our oil dependency? Could it have something to do with the fact that the first presidential primary is located in Iowa, corn capitol of the country? In legislative terms this means Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money should have been committed to alternative energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind.

SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE:

Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Obama’s own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, “Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.”

NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT:

Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, “I don’t think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have.” Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama’s record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that comment to be misleading: “In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent's call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers.”

Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice known as “pole-vaulting” over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid “right to organize,” “minimum wage,” and other worker protections.

SOME FINAL EXAMPLES:

On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, America’s pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein he disavowed his previous support for the plight of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided history of the region and called for continued military support for Israel, rather than taking the opportunity to promote the various peace movements in and outside of Israel.

Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn’t have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)

Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)

On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he’s campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he’d employ a different border solution.

It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.

Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president (“Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable,” USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn’t even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Feingold’s words “I’m amazed at Democrats … cowering with this president’s number’s so low.” Once again, it’s troubling that Obama would take these positions and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime.

CONCLUSION:

Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about “change” and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.

I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.

Matt Gonzalez is a former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
source:http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html

The ugly side of beauty products

Whether your beauty products might be bad for you is up for debate -- and that creates a major headache for consumers.

By Sara Glassman, Special to the Star Tribune

Last update: December 10, 2007 - 10:21 AM

When you count everything from deodorant to toothpaste to hand soap to lotion, even the lowest-maintenance types among us probably use at least five beauty or personal-care products.

How many do you use a day? That's the question that Stacy Malkan, author of "Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry" posed to about 300 people attending a panel discussion at the University of Minnesota recently.

She asked that question because the safety of some ingredients commonly used in these products has become suspect by a number of watchdog groups.

It was widely reported recently that more than half of the lipsticks tested by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics contained lead. Another ingredient setting off alarms is phthalates (pronounced THAY-lates), a common component of fragrances, as reported by the Enviromental Working Group.

Research indicates that phtalates can interfere with hormones and cause birth defects. In a study of 289 people by the Center of Disease Control, all had higher-than-expected levels of phthalates, especially women of childbearing age.

Industry scientist counters claims

But Malkan's reasoning is being questioned by the cosmetic industry. John Bailey, chief scientist for the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, a Washington D.C.-based trade group, said that certain levels of lead occur naturally in nature and that the levels found in lipsticks were relatively low. In general, he says cosmetics are safe.

"Speaking as a scientist, these issues aren't new, they've been known for a while," he said. "Low levels of lead show up in products because it's very much in the environment naturally, not because it's intentionally added. If you look hard enough at foods, water, air, soil air, there's going to always be a small residue of lead. For that reason, federal government authorities as well as some of states have set limits for lead exposure. Lead found in lipstick is well below these limits."

Finding what's safe is confusing, hard work

Panel attendee Asia Schulz of Eden Prairie, who has been reading "Not Just a Pretty Face," has found the quest for healthy beauty products to be confusing and labor-intensive. She said that she has started throwing out beauty products based on ingredients listed on labels, but not without trepidation: Schulz is also a makeup artist for Bobbi Brown (owned by Estee Lauder) and Lancôme (owned by L'Oreal), which she now isn't convinced are safe.

At home, Schulz recently noticed that her husband's Edge Shave Gel contains triethanolamine (TEA). According to Malkan's book, the ingredient "forms carcinogenic nitrosamine compounds if mixed with other ingredients that act as nitrosating agents. It is also a skin sensitizer and possibly toxic to the lungs and brain."

Bailey disputes that. "It's a safe ingredient, normally used to sort of adjust the PH of a product and make it softer and milder," he said.

Label-reading has shown Schulz that you can't rely on brand names alone to determine the ingredients: She found ingredients that Malkan calls harmful on a tube of Kiss My Face lotion, which is marketed as being natural. "But then I pulled out a black nail polish I bought for 99 cents. The bottle said '100 percent phthalate free,'" she said.

Bailey questions how useful a careful examination of products is for consumers. "If you look beyond claims that express particular hazards and how they link those assertions to finished products, I don't think you can draw the conclusions that are being represented," he said.

Horst's new line: Good enough to eat?

On the panel with Malkan was, among others, Horst Rechelbacher, founder of Aveda Corp., which was sold to Estee Lauder in 1997. An audience member pointed out that Aveda's Shampure rated a four (medium hazard) and the Shampure conditioner a five (also medium hazard).

Aveda's not-so-direct response, via e-mail from Gracia Walker, director of global communications: "Consumer safety has always been a top priority at Aveda. We are committed to selling only safe products and work diligently to ensure that our formulations and packaging meet our exceedingly high standards and comply with applicable regulations in every country in which our products are sold."

Rechelbacher has created a new company called Intelligent Nutrients (IN), a joint venture with Regis Corporation. The concept of the new line is that everything you put on your body should be something that you can eat and your body can digest. "It's not just food-based, but organic food-based," Rechelbacher said.

It's an idea that "is going to be normal," he added. "Putting substances on the body and not getting nutritional benefit is just outdated."

To this end, he has united food chemists and aesthetics chemists. "It has to look good and it has to function."

A variety of Intelligent Nutrients' "Neutraceutical Foods" and "Neutraceutical Supplements" are currently available online, at various salons and at the IN corporate headquarters in Minneapolis. A full line of products will launch next spring or summer.

It's an idea that seems to be catching on in the beauty industry. Origins has recently launched a new line of products that are certified organic, including face lotion (95 percent certified organic) and lip balm (97 percent certified organic).

So what can you use?

In the meantime, Malkan recommends keeping things basic, starting with the products you use everyday, like shampoos and deodorants.

"The advice that I follow is that simpler is better," she said. "Fewer synthetic ingredients, fewer ingredients overall and in some cases fewer products." Rechelbacher even suggested washing hair with an egg (it turns out that suds don't actually function beyond adding to the aesthetics of the bathing experience).

Among the products that raise Malkan's brows are bubble bath (especially "children sitting in warm waters with chemicals"), air freshener and any kind of fragrance, to which so many people have allergies or sensitivities.

Also, there is no such thing as safe hair color, said Rechelbacher, although bleaches are safer than dark hues.

Malkan no longer colors her hair. She suggests using the Safe Cosmetics Database (see chart for details, or www.safecosmetics.org) for guidance.

She hasn't been spooked from all beautifiers, though. "There are many products on the market now that are a lot safer," she said. "It's up to consumers at this point to do our own research. In the meantime, while we work to change the laws, we research safer products and buy them for each other for Christmas."

Sara Glassman is a Minneapolis-based fashion writer. See her blog at www.startribune.com/stylepoints.

source: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/style/11966016.html

Matt Gonzalez for President

How a Green Won
by John Halle / July 28th, 2007
Dissident Voice

AP, San Francisco: San Francisco Mayor Matt Gonzalez announced his
campaign for the Green Party nomination for Presidency today. He is
expected to encounter only token opposition at the Green Party nominating
convention in July. A likely running mate is Georgia representative
Cynthia McKinney, according to Green Party officials.

Pledging an immediate withdrawl of US troops from the Middle East, the
Gonzalez-McKinney ticket is expected to galvanize anti war activists
displeased with the current field of candidates all of whom are on record
as having supported President Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Congressional support of subsequent incursions into Syria and airstrikes
on major Iranian cities have led to numerous, increasingly disruptive
demonstrations across the nation.

Unlike previous Green Party candidates, Gonzalez brings to the table
substantial experience in governance. A big city mayor and public interest
lawyer, Gonzalez's resume is equivalent to that of his likely Republican
opponent, though largely untainted by the plague of scandal which has been
a conspicuous feature of the Giuliani campaign since its outset.

The multi-ethnic ticket is also expected to attract the support of Latino
voters angered by the Democratic frontrunner's overtures to anti-immigrant
groups. A former member of the Congressional Black Caucus, McKinney will
be the first member of this body nominated for executive office. She is
expected to make the war on drugs, widely viewed as catastrophic for
African American communities, a centerpiece of the campaign and has
pledged to make voter registration among traditionally disenfranchised
groups a major focus.

The Green Party ticket's endorsement of single payer, universal health
care has attracted the support of large activist organizations developed
in the wake of Michael Moore's Sicko, which last week became the largest
grossing film in history. The only other candidate supporting single
payer, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has remained mired in the low
single digits and has, since September, been excluded from debates
sponsored by major news organizations.

Experts noted that while a Gonzalez-McKinney ticket would be a long shot
under normal electoral circumstances, the presence of two moderate
candidates in a four way race leaves the field open for a left wing
challenge.

While lacking the financial resources of the major party candidates, Green
Party officials believe they can compensate for this shortfall through on
line donations and an effectively organized volunteer staff. They note
that these were sufficient to overcome a candidate lavishly financed by
corporations, wealthy donors and the full weight of the Democratic Party
machine in 2003.

While some progressives remain skeptical about the prospects for third
parties, others have reconsidered their position. "A year ago I was on
record as saying 'It's not going to happen'. Now I'm not so sure," said
one who insisted on anonymity.

John Halle is a Professor at the Bard College Conservatory of Music and
former Green Party Alderman from New Haven's Ninth Ward.

source: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/how-a-green-won/

Open Letter from Green Party to Michael Moore on

Green Party to Michael Moore, as 'Sicko' opens nationwide:

Democrats are a lost cause on health care, while the Green Party's candidates and platform demand a single-payer national health plan

Americans will only get a true universal health plan (Single-Payer / Medicare For All) when Greens are elected

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Green Party of the United States sent an open letter to Michael Moore, whose movie 'Sicko' opened in theaters last week, urging him to join the efforts of the Green Party and its candidates and officeholders to enact a single-payer national health plan (also called Medicare For All).

The Green Party agrees with Michael Moore's premise that the US's private insurance system must be dismantled, and that the country must convert to a single-payer plan similar to the Canadian system.

Greens warned Mr. Moore that the Democratic Party (like the Republican Party) is too awash in corporate money to end the stranglehold of the private HMO-insurance industry and enact genuine coverage for all Americans. Congress will only seriously consider a single-payer plan when Greens begin to win seats in the US House and Senate.

The Green Party letter encourages Mr. Moore to help Greens get elected to Congress, as well as state legislatures and city councils, and predicts that the Green Party's 2008 nominee and national slate will be the only candidates on most ballots who support single-payer.

The text of the letter follows below.

Dear Mike,

Congratulations on the opening of 'Sicko' and all the glowing reviews!

We in the Green Party hope that millions of Americans will see 'Sicko' and understand that America has a choice: we can either have quality health care guaranteed for everyone, or we can maintain a system based on corporate insurance and HMO coverage. We can't have both. And we hope that the American people will realize that it's time to demand a single-payer national health plan and stop privileging corporate profits over the health -- the very lives -- of the American people.

Here's the problem: we're not going to get a national health plan as long as the political landscape remains limited to two parties addicted to corporate contributions. Republican and Democratic politicians alike refuse to consider any plan that doesn't leave private HMOs and insurance corporations in charge.

There are some exceptions among Dems, like Reps. John Conyers (Mich.) and Dennis Kucinich (Oh.), but Rep. Conyers' single-payer bill has as little chance of passage as Rep. Kucinich has of getting nominated. Once upon a time, the Democratic Party supported national health coverage and even endorsed it in the Democratic national platform in 1948. But they deleted it from the platform in the 1990s to make room for President Clinton's 'managed-care' phony reform scheme, which would have enlarged the power of major insurance firms. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry both rejected national health insurance. (Mr. Gore saw the light and endorsed it a couple of years later.)

There's only one prominent national party that supports single-payer/Medicare For All -- the Green Party. The Green Party and its candidates have demanded single-payer ever since we were founded, and we don't accept corporate contributions from HMOs, insurance firms, pharmaceutical manufacturers, or any other corporate lobby.

Let's be honest, Mike. The USA will never have a national health insurance program until we break the two-party stranglehold and see the emergence of a new party that's free of corporate influence.

If we can get a few Greens into Congress, as well as into state legislatures and city halls all across America, and if our presidential candidates can draw significant percentages on Election Day, it'll change the political landscape. When Democratic politicians have to compete with Greens as well as Republicans, more of them will embrace single-payer. (And some maverick Republicans will support it, too!)

When the 2004 election season began, you and Bill Maher got down on your knees in front of 2000 Green presidential candidate Ralph Nader and begged him not to run again in 2004. You and Bill insisted that 2004 wasn't the time for a third-party challenge, and that the priority of every rational American should be the removal of George W. Bush from the White House.

Millions of Americans who support a national health plan -- as well as an end to the Iraq War -- agreed with you and Bill and voted for John Kerry, a candidate awash in corporate money. Mr. Kerry dismissed national health care and declared himself solidly in support of the Iraq War.

What was the outcome? John Kerry and his fellow Dems (again, with a couple of exceptions like Rep. Conyers) sat on their thumbs when reports of Election Day irregularities surfaced in Ohio and other states. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of African American and student votes were obstructed or not counted. Mr. Bush's election in 2004 was as illegitimate as his 2000 victory!

Mike, I'm sure you remember that it was two third-party presidential candidates -- the Green Party's David Cobb and Libertarian Michael Badnarik -- who demanded an investigation and led the Ohio recount. It was Greens who raised the money for legal expenses in the Ohio and New Mexico recounts. While John Kerry and his buddies kept mum (maybe they feared that the Democrats' own election shenanigans would be exposed), Greens fought for fair and accurate elections and the right to vote.

A few months later, the Conyers hearings proved that the Green Party was right. Republicans in Ohio not only rigged the election, they also tried to influence the recount. In January, 2007, two Republican election operatives were convicted in Cuyahoga County for their role in fixing the recount.

Here's the kicker, Mike. When Republicans in Florida failed to hand in petitions for George W. Bush before the deadline for the 2004 election, Democrats gave them a pass and placed Mr. Bush on the ballot anyway!

Imagine the movie you could make about how Republicans and Democrats have shredded our election system!

We can only conclude that the Democratic Party would rather lose elections to the GOP than tolerate third parties and independents -- with a special hostility towards anyone whose campaign brings a noncorporate antiwar message to the American people.

That's why we can't get a national health program. The Democratic and Republican leadership doesn't even want Americans to discuss the single-payer option, although they'll have a hard time censoring the debate now that 'Sicko' is in theaters.

We know that the private insurance industry, mainstream Democratic and Republican politicians, and the corporate media are already trying to undermine the message of 'Sicko.' They're calling national health care 'liberal elitism' and 'creeping socialism' and other names. As FAIR reported on June 25, CBS's Jeff Greenfield ignored polls in a June 22 story on 'Sicko' with an erroneous claim that national health coverage has minimal popular support.

We know that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and most of the other Democratic presidential hopefuls are offering corporate-friendly health care reform plans. We can predict that they'll claim their plans will solve the crisis depicted in 'Sicko,' just as the Clinton Administration dishonestly called its managed-care proposal 'universal health care' back in 1993.

On June 26, 2007 six Democratic US Senators spoke at an SEIU-sponsored 'universal health care' rally on Capitol Hill in which single-payer and Medicare For All were never mentioned. When Dems say 'universal health care,' they really mean "For God's sake, anything but single-payer!"

The Green Party will be the ONLY PARTY in 2008 that demands single-payer. The Green nominee will be the ONLY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE who talks about single-payer.

We'll be the only party supporting what Michael Moore supports!

The argument that our first priority must be the defeat of the GOP no longer holds water. Regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans get into public office, the real winners are powerful corporate lobbies: insurance, HMO, pharmaceutical, oil, defense, credit card, real estate, you name it. And if the Republicans manipulate the vote again and engineer their own victory, blocking African Americans, young voters, poor voters, and voters serving overseas in the US Armed Forces, we can be sure that the Democratic leadership will again roll over, scratch their butts, and say "Let's not be divisive! It's time to move on!"

'Sicko' will not change the Democratic Party agenda. MoveOn, Progressive Democrats for America, and terrific pro-single-payer candidates like Dennis Kucinich will not influence the Democratic platform in 2008.

It's a safe bet that MoveOn & Co. will place party loyalty ahead of their own stated ideals and endorse whichever corporate candidate gets the 2008 Democratic nomination. These Pied Piper Progressives will lure voters who want single-payer, voters who want US troops out of Iraq, voters who want a White House and Congress free of insurance, oil, and defense industry influence into voting for a Democrat who flushes their agenda down the drain.

As David Cobb observed during his 2004 Green presidential campaign, the Democratic Party is the "graveyard of progressive politics." It's the graveyard of national health care.

The Green Party is growing. We've continued to face down antidemocratic challenges from the old parties. In 2006, Green candidate Rich Whitney drew 11% in the race for Governor of Illinois and achieved ballot status in his state for the Green Party, after Gov. Rod Blagojevich spent $800,000 in taxpayers' money trying to keep Greens off the ballot. Nationally, we won more votes than ever before in the 2006 election. But we have a long way to go.

Hey, Mike, do you really want to see a national health plan enacted? Do you really want the message of 'Sicko' to be part of the public debate over health care in the 2008 election and beyond?

Then let's stop wasting time. Help us run a Green candidate for president in 2008. Help us get Greens elected to Congress. Help us place Greens in statehouses and county commissions and city halls and school boards. (Yes, we know you have supported Green candidates in the past!) Help us get ballot access in every state. Help us bring the Green message to the American people. Help us make the Greens a major political US party. Help us spark the kind of revolution in US politics that will make a single-payer national health plan a reality!

Yours truly,
The Green Party of the United States

----
Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty@greens.org
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.org