Eastman and Murphy -- Why Nader is the only choice.

From: senhor san (dharma_at_nwinfo.net)
Date: 10/09/04 

Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 03:26:12 -0700

VOTERS STRIKE!

VOTERS STRIKE FOR REAL POLITICAL CHOICE

Vote as if Democrats and Republicans don't exist.

Remember: Voting Republican or Democrat
is tantamount to crossing a picket line!!!

Vote Nader! Voting for anyone else
is suicide.

Remember:

Vote in Bush -- and you'll have a revolution.

Vote in Kerry -- and you'll have four more years of intensified Bush
policies.

Vote for Nader -- and you'll get the real America we believe in back, a
secure peace and the gratitude of the whole world.

The Formula For The Political/Psychological Chains of Monolithic Bi-partisan
Tyranny
by *** Eastman

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----
We are enslaved by the following mechanism of politico-pychological control:
   [Too close to call]  + [Anybody but] =  [Constraint of voters choose
between:
GW Bush and John Kerry
Bill Clinton and Bob Dole
Bill Clinton or George HW Bush
The strategy demands that each candidate do everything to make themselves
the boogyman to the opposition  -- don't even try making yourself look
particularly good after you snag the nomination of your party  --  the
Republican candidates job is to scare all of the left-progressive-populist
into the Democratic corral  and the Democratic candidate's job is to scare
all of the "right-populist-petit-bourgeois" into the Republican coral  -- 
even though both groups know that the "best man for the job" in the
primaries and in the final race is neither the Democratic nor the Republican
candidate.
That's how it works.  Now add in all the details to this analysis yourself.
--------------------------
Proof of 9-11 frame-up -- the Pentagon 911 evidence:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/8
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf ;
--------------------------------
John Murphy for Nader:
Dear Editor,
One of my friends said that she would vote for Nader if he even had a ghost
of a chance of winning.
I then explained to her why Mr. Nader would win.  No, of course he would not
win the presidency but he would win nevertheless.
This election has nothing to do with whether or not Mr. Nader can be elected
president.  It was never about that.  It is however, all about the
conditions why he can not.
The whole point of being active and working for the just causes championed
by Mr. Nader is to change those conditions.  Nader and those working with
him are already accomplishing this goal in just a few short months.
Throughout history the taunt of those who advocate that we should not press
too hard has been "do you really think you can win?"  If the slaves had let
that question stop them, if the suffragettes had let that stop them, if the
civil rights movement had let that stop them, if the anti-Vietnam War
movement had let that stop them, if the disability movement had let that
stop them, if the gay-rights movement and the antiwar movement and the
anti-globalization movement lets that stop them today, then we know the
answer: the whole world will lose.
With Nader and his crew pushing on so many fronts, we must reshape the
question.  It's not "can he win", but "how much can he win?"  And the real
question is, "How much can we win?"
There is nothing new or extraordinary about this plan.  Its tried and true
nature is the one reason why we know it can work.
We are off to a better start than most people realize.  Behind the candidate
trashed by the progressive media and ignored by much of the mainstream media
stand a growing number of volunteers who are getting the political training
of a lifetime compressed into eight short months.  Ralph Nader has stood up
to gale-force winds.  In the process, a cadre of seasoned activists is
transforming themselves into just the kind of people who can provide the
stamina for a string of victories on many fronts.  This is no accident.  As
Nader once put it, "I start with the premise that the function of leadership
is to produce more leaders, not more followers."
Two hundred years ago Thomas Jefferson issued a call for a new party against
the financiers, in favor of the interests of the majority of Americans.
It's a really old idea.  We are not waiting for it. We have become one with
it.
John A. Murphy
========================
Murphy also writes:
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PEACE COMMUNITY
 (Please share my letter with your friends.)
"There are times when you have to obey a call which is the highest of all,
i.e. the voice of conscience even though such obedience may cost many a
bitter tear, and even more, separation from friends, from family, from the
state to which you may belong, from all that you have held as dear as life
itself. For this obedience is the law of our being."
 - Gandhi
Dear Fellow Members of the Peace Community,
I want to see George Bush removed from office. He is one of the worst
presidents in my 58-year life and I see his administration as a threat to my
hopes for the United States and the health of the planet. However, it is
important that we remove him while standing for what we believe in -- and
educating others about our view -- so we can expand the populist base
seeking common sense solutions to our common problems.
The coming election is not taking the shape of a referendum on the American
empire, but rather a contest in management skills. Kerry claims he would be
a better steward of the empire. He would be better at pacifying Iraq, better
at forcing U.S. solutions on the Middle East, better at getting the world to
submit to U.S. will.
Perhaps he would. But ought we in the peace community to help him? What is
our stake in improving the quality of management of the empire? Many of us
do have a stake and that may be the problem.
The "any body but Bush" argument today is self-interest masquerading as
high-mindedness. When we say that anyone is better than Bush, what is left
unsaid is that we, too, have a stake in the success of U.S. world
domination. Bush's mismanagement is a threat to us because it threatens to
bring down the empire and with it the relatively sheltered lifestyle of
those who manage to live well inside the beast.
But can we honestly say that a better managed American imperialism makes the
world a better place for others, too? Does it help the people of the world
that most of the huge "research" budget of American universities has
something to do with developing more effective ways to kill people? Will an
American victory in the war in Iraq help Americans who can't afford seeing a
family doctor?
On Election Day, we have a choice. We can vote our complicity with
imperialism or our solidarity with its victims.
I do not argue that "the worse the better." If I did, I would have to
advocate voting for Bush. All I say is that I do not know whether a Bush or
a Kerry presidency would be better for those who have no rights. I do not
know, partly because this isn't an election issue. Both contenders are
committed to extending and wielding U.S. military and financial power
without consideration to its victims, both at home and abroad.
The "strategic vote" is, therefore, limited to "strategic from the
standpoint of my own narrow interest." The conflict about whether to vote
for "the lesser of two evils" is mis-framed as a conflict between pragmatism
and idealism - "something is better than nothing" vs. "all or nothing." It
is rather a conflict between narrow self-interest and ethics.
Let those who support imperialism debate how best to run an empire. The
right thing to do is to use our power to vote, symbolically, to signal our
refusal to contribute to a civic conversation about the quality of imperial
management and domination. It is almost a futile gesture, but not completely
so; it is an act of solidarity with the disenfranchised.
If we fail to stand for what we believe in -- equal rights for all, peace
and justice, elimination of corporate political power, environmental and
economic stewardship as well as expansion of human rights around the globe,
then we fail to create the electoral and political movement necessary to
create the paradigm shift needed in the United States.
We are a nation at war - internationally and domestically - and that war
wounds us every day, draining our budget, enriching war-corporations,
undermining our values and Constitution, making us less safe and creating
enemies of much of the world. For me, the litmus test for 2004 is whether
the candidate we support threatens or feeds the bloated military industrial
complex.
George Bush is the war president who has demonstrated that he will give the
military industrial complex as much as it can consume. John Kerry is the
candidate who supported the bombing of Afghanistan, voted for the Shock and
Awe Iraq invasion, voted for the Patriot Act, sponsored Plan Colombia (the
war approach to drug addiction) and the candidate who is calling for 40,000
additional, new soldiers. Both agree there should be no right of return for
Palestinians, give the green light to assassinating Palestinian leaders and
that Israel should be allowed to keep illegal settlements in occupied land.
Ralph Nader is the only peace and justice candidate in the November
presidential elections. The question is whether the peace and justice
community will stand with him.
The only way to have a debate on the war in this presidential race is for
the peace and justice community to support the peace candidate.
John Kerry cannot seriously be considered an improvement over George Bush.
Mr. Bush is driving our nation into a brick wall at 90 miles an hour. Kerry
might slow it to 89.99 miles an hour. But we don't need to slam into the
wall at a slower pace; we need to change direction.
Before he announced his candidacy, Ralph Nader sent a detailed letter to
both political parties. He raised urgent issues: the below-living-wage of
tens of millions of American workers, the expanding number of people lacking
health insurance, the roadblocks to workers organizing trade unions, the
record deficit that is a tax on our children, the inequality in education,
jobs and opportunity based on race, gender and sexual orientation in
contrast to the gluttonous expanding wealth of the wealthiest as well as
racial profiling and other forms of prejudice in our nation. Nader
highlighted the central problem of our corporate-government where corporate
domination of our political system walks hand in hand with a largely
unprosecuted corporate crime wave, massive corporate welfare dependency and
omnipresent corporatization where even our children grow up corporate.
Mr. Nader raised the critical need to protect our environment from its
deadly reliance on fossil and nuclear fuels, the need for greater efficiency
in housing, offices and automobiles and to protect our air, water and
natural resources so we do not bring our species, or others, to extinction.
And, of course, he raised the issue of ending the Iraq War and converting
our military industrial budget to one that focuses on human needs first and
wages peace around the world.
The responses were what we should have expected. The Republicans said they
supported the Bush agenda, the Democrats said they opposed the Bush agenda.
The two corporate political parties do not take our concerns seriously -
issues needing urgent attention, they ignore. Bush can energize his faith
base by supporting a homophobic constitutional amendment; Kerry can play to
his base with his Bush-scare songs and both can assure the corporate
paymasters who support their campaigns - Bush by promising to make permanent
his tax cuts for the rich, Kerry by promising corporate tax cuts disguised
as his jobs program - both will continue to fatten the bloated and redundant
military industrial complex.
So where does that leave us? It highlights our failure to organize beyond a
small sliver of left progressives. It highlights the need for us to build
new electoral and political vehicles that cut across the political spectrum
and represent our common sense populist values. It shows the need for us to
build a broader movement that can elect people who share our values.
If we do not recognize our failures and politically organize in a deadly
serious way there is no reason for people to join our cause. We cannot
promise African Americans, Latinos, Muslims and Arabs a fair shake in the
United States if we cannot start to elect people who stand for our values.
We need to begin to elect women to political office, women who stand for
equal rights, peace and justice. A political paradigm shift is needed.
When Ralph Nader announced that he was going to run as an Independent, I was
disappointed. As a Green Party activist I saw him as the strongest potential
Green candidate. But as I have worked for his campaign, I have discovered
that the Independent run has allowed many more people to hear his message.
Activists with the Reform and Libertarian Parties, as well as Independents,
have told me that they agree with much of Nader's agenda but that they would
not have even considered it if he had run as a Green. Running Green, Nader
was categorized by many voters who closed their minds and ears to his ideas.
This is not to say that Nader has broken with the Green Party. He supports
their values and agenda, has helped them to grow and will be supportive of
serious Green candidates. In fact, he said he would have welcomed their
endorsement if they decided not to run a candidate.
Many of Ralph's positions on the deficit, the loss of jobs due in part to
bad trade agreements, corporate welfare, corporate crime, the need for
electoral reform, the unfair tax system, the failure of the drug war and
protection of the environment - are issues that many Americans agree with.
They cut across a broad swath of the electorate - especially independents
and third party members.
Nader continues to stand for the same issues he has always stood for. But,
the problems the United States is facing have grown and become so obvious
that more people are seeing things more clearly. Americans across the
political spectrum do not like to hear that one-third of full-time workers
don't earn enough to live on - under $10 per hour. They don't like to see
businesses close in the US as jobs are shipped to China, India and Mexico.
They don't like seeing Americans sent to war on misinformation, distortions
and falsehoods.
Thus the Nader/Camejo campaign presents an opportunity for the peace and
justice movement to continue to stand firmly for - peace and justice. It is
an opportunity to show people who did not see themselves as progressives
that in fact they support progressive issues. It presents an opportunity to
build a bigger movement of concerned citizens who can work together to
change the paradigm - to create a government responsive to their needs. The
electoral challenge of 2004 is an opportunity to grow our movement to new
levels so that we can become politically effective.
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party seems beaten back by the DLC
corporate wing of the Party. Progressive leaders - Kucinich and Sharpton -
were soundly defeated in the primaries and Howard Dean shouted himself down
and showed he was not the ally we hoped when he criticized Kucinich for
urging cuts in defense spending. By joining the Nader coalition we provide a
counterbalance to the pull of the corporate Democrats. Senator Kerry will
not be able to take the progressive base of the Party - workers, African
Americans, Latinos and women - for granted. He will have to work for their
vote - promise them something so he has a mandate for more than merely being
'anybody but Bush' should he be elected
When we are put in the position of voting for "anybody" but Bush, we have
been given a false choice. In 2004 we need to find a way to stand up for
what we believe.  On Election Day, we have a choice. We can vote our
complicity with imperialism or our solidarity with its victims.
Peace,
John A. Murphy: Spoiler