John Edwards Moral Test Speech

Remarks by Senator John Edwards
St. Anselm's College, Manchester, New HamphshireOctober 29, 2007

Many of you know that I am the son of a mill worker -- that I rose from modest means and have been blessed in so many ways in life.
Elizabeth and I have so much to be grateful for.
And all of you know about some of the challenges we have faced in my family. But there came a time, a few months ago, when Elizabeth and I had to decide, in the quiet of a hospital room, after many hours of tests and getting pretty bad news -- what we were going to do with our lives.And we made our decision. That we were not going to go quietly into the night -- that we were going to stand and fight for what we believe in.As Elizabeth and I have campaigned across America, I've come to a better understanding of what that decision really meant -- and why we made it.Earlier this year, I spoke at Riverside Church in New York, where, forty years ago, Martin Luther King gave a historic speech. I talked about that speech then, and I want to talk about it today. Dr. King was tormented by the way he had kept silent for two years about the Vietnam War. He was told that if he spoke out he would hurt the civil rights movement and all that he had worked for -- but he could not take it any more -- instead of decrying the silence of others -- he spoke the truth about himself.
"Over the past two years" he said, "I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silence and speak from the burning of my own heart."
I am not holier than thou. I am not perfect by any means. But there are events in life that you learn from, and which remind you what this is really all about. Maybe I have been freed from the system and the fear that holds back politicians because I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul. Especially right now, when our country requires so much more of us, and needs to hear the truth from its leaders.And, although I have spent my entire life taking on the big powerful interests and winning -- which is why I have never taken a dime from Washington lobbyists or political action committees -- I too have been guilty of my own silence -- but no more.It's time to tell the truth. And the truth is the system in Washington is corrupt. It is rigged by the powerful special interests to benefit they very few at the expense of the many. And as a result, the American people have lost faith in our broken system in Washington, and believe it no longer works for ordinary Americans. They're right.As I look across the political landscape of both parties today -- what I see are politicians too afraid to tell the truth -- good people caught in a bad system that overwhelms their good intentions and requires them to chase millions of dollars in campaign contributions in order to perpetuate their careers and continue their climb to higher office.
Read the rest of the speech here.

"Fringe" candidates?

In a letter addressed to "the Ron Paul Faithful" posted last week on CNBC.com, managing editor Allen Wastler defended his decision to pull a post-debate poll that asked readers who they thought had won. He believed the poll had either been "hacked or the target of a campaign" because after a couple hours and 7,000-plus votes Ron Paul was at 75 percent and Wastler hadn't seen him "pull those kind of numbers in any 'legit' poll." This was a fairly reasonable assumption. After all, 71 percent of Republicans polled by Gallup this month hadn't even heard of Ron Paul. But does that mean Wastler was in the right to retract a harmless survey--something even he described as "just a way to engage the reader"--because he didn't like the results? Or better yet, as you might be asking: "Does it even matter? I'm not voting republican and I'm especially not voting for any fringe candidates."

Finding the answer to the first question is complicated and perhaps unfulfilling, as the efficacy of Wastler's decision has been debated somewhat endlessly by both Paul's rabid online support community and other talking heads at CNBC. The answer to the second question, however, is a concrete "yes, it does matter!" You may not care about Ron Paul, but you should care about the way the media directs our attention to mainstream candidates.

There's no doubting that the media has a bias towards candidates that are "electable"--a term that has much more to do with money raised than ideology. Take Ohio Congressman and Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich as an example. During the first Democratic debate in April, The Nation's Bob Moser, wrote that "As the first big question about Iraq was lobbed at the Big Three--Clinton, Obama and Edwards--the mediocracy collectively pounded away at their laptops, taking down every word in a veritable symphony of typing. When the same question then went to Kucinich, the man who intrepidly preached against the war in 2004 when the others would not, all hands rested. All typing ceased. The music stopped. Attention wandered."

It hasn't just been the media marginalizing Kucinich (The New York Times, for one, hasn't mentioned his name since June and left his opinion of the war out of its coverage of the debates), but his party has also left him high and dry. Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman recently passed Kucinich over for chairman of the National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, which he was in line to take over.

Never-the-less, polls have shown that the electorate are very much in sync with his positions. Of over 153,000 people who filled out an online form asking for their opinions on 25 issues, 57 percent were found to identify with Kucinich more than any other candidate--Democrat or Republican. This may not be a broad representation of America, but unlike other online polls (the CNBC.com one, included) it was a "blind" analysis rather than a popularity contest, meaning respondents voted on issues, not candidates. Also worth noting is that Paul was the highest ranked Republican with 28 percent of those polled identifying with his positions.

Yet another candidate being left out of the debate is Democratic hopeful (and former senator of Alaska) Mike Gravel. He spurred a lot of "Who the hell is this guy?" interest after the first debate--which by many accounts he won. Then a few months later at a forum held at the NAACP's annual convention, Gravel explicitly attacked Hillary Clinton and John Edwards for authorizing the use of force in Iraq in 2002, as well as Clinton's husband for the devastating effects of NAFTA on Mexico. Moderator Russ Mitchell of CBS shot down any chance of rebuttal under the technicality that it was a forum, not a debate. Clinton and Edwards were caught on tape conferring afterwards about the possibility of limiting the number of Democrats in presidential debates. Edwards, in particular, said, "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group."

Gravel poses an interesting threat to the current political power structure. For the past ten years he has been conducting research and working with constitutional law experts to enact a law called the National Initiative for Democracy that would make the people a fourth branch of government. Much like local and state initiatives, voters would have a say on what becomes law in this country. That means people would be able to address issues such as the Iraq war, climate change, healthcare, or even the electoral college.

Ralph Nader has praised Gravel and his initiative, saying "No candidate for President from the two major parties has ever demonstrated such a detailed position regarding the sovereign power of People to amend the Constitution and make laws." Of course Nader's endorsement probably doesn't help Gravel's cause among the Democratic faithful, being that many still hold him personally responsible (and quite unfairly so) for the election of Bush in 2000. It should, however, stir some thought as to why such a disparity in ideology between so-called "fringe" candidates and mainstream candidates within the same party can exist--not to mention why so many people identify more with the "fringe" candidates.

With the primary elections creeping up, Americans should stop and consider who more embodies their opinions on the issues and not who has the most money and power to be a viable force against the other side. When you think about it, that's really a vote for Democracy and a vote against the marriage between the mainstream media and the political status quo that has for too long undermined our values.

Bryan Farrell is an independent journalist in New York.

Can Al Gore Be Trusted?

Published on Saturday, October 13, 2007 by CommonDreams.orgCan Al Gore Be Trusted?
by Jeff Cohen
This is a repint of a vintage 2006 CommonDreams column exploring an Al Gore presidential candidacy and the old Gore vs. the new Gore.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
The wise old Chinese proverb on who is to blame for repeat gullibility was famously mangled by our Embarrasser in Chief: “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you,” Bush stammered, with that deer-in-the-headlights look. “Fool me — you can’t get fooled again!” The video of that golden Bushism can bring down the house on The Daily Show.
But these words of wisdom are no laughing matter when applied to the man who defeated Bush in the 2000 election: Al Gore.
Many solid progressives want Gore to be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008. A recent AlterNet reader survey (in which Noam Chomsky won the MVP for “Most Valuable Progressive”) showed Gore way in front of the pack — with Russ Feingold second and corporate media “front-runner” Hillary Clinton way back.
If Gore does run in 2008, big questions will nag: Didn’t he fool a lot of us once before? Can we trust him?

more

Nelson-Pallmeyer, peace activist, enters U.S. Senate race

Nelson-Pallmeyer, peace activist, enters U.S. Senate race
BY RACHEL E. STASSEN-BERGER Pioneer Press

Outside of Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman's St. Paul office, Democrat Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer today announced his own candidacy for the Senate and solicited his supporters to dial their cell phones.
"Friends, start up those cell phones," Nelson-Pallmeyer asked the crowd of cover 100 supporters who turned out to see him officially declare his bid to unseat Coleman. "We are launching the largest mobile phone bank in Minnesota history."
And indeed, immediately after his brief announcement speech, supporters spread out in a nearby parking lot and on the sidewalk to pitch the candidate to Minnesotans. Among his supporters today were several of the more liberal members of state Legislature, including Minneapolis Reps. Karen Clark and Jim Davnie, and former state Sen. Becky Lourey.
The cell phone gimmick may be one way Nelson-Pallmeyer, 56, plans to counter the superior fundraising capacity and name identification of the two Democrats considered frontrunners in the race - comedian Al Franken and attorney Mike Ciresi. Attorney and environmental activist Jim Cohen and frequent candidate Dick Franson are also running for the seat.
Like Nelson-Pallmeyer, Franken, Cohen and Ciresi have said they will abide by the DFL endorsement next summer.
Nelson-Pallmeyer, a peace and justice professor at the Univ. of St. Thomas. The endorsement went to Keith Ellison, who went on to win the general election.
In that race, Nelson-Pallmeyer was seen as the strongest opponent of the war in Iraq and today he maintained his "peace candidate" status.
He proudly said that before the Iraq war started he debated Rep. Jim Ramstad about the potential conflict.
"I said then we were being lied to. I said then that we were being manipulated by a well-crafted politics of fear. I said then that the Bush administration was leading us into a pre-planned war for oil. I said then that the war would be a disaster for Iraq and for the United States," said Nelson-Pallmeyer, who referenced Paul Wellstone in his announcement speech.
Today Nelson-Pallmeyer expanded his pitch to include:
-Health care, he wants a national single-payer system.
-Environmental issues, he wants use of more alternatives to oil and more public transit.
-Immigration, he wants to welcome immigrants not crackdown on them, and raising the minimum wage.
"Minnesotans, we may not always agree but I promise to listen and you will always know exactly where I stand," Nelson-Pallmeyer said. "Together, we can solve problems."

2008 Peace First Standard

1050 Selby Avenue, St. Paul MN 55104
651-917-0383 http://www.fnvw.org/ http://www.peaceintheprecincts.org/
Secure>Cut>Convert
Minnesota Wins!
Minnesota will win only when we decide what we really want for our families and communities —
justice, peace, jobs and a clean environment. Let’s put our money where our values are —
let’s improve national security, cut reckless military spending and debt, and convert the savings
to investment in a stronger Minnesota!
Toward this end, we expect Congressional candidates and ourselves to commit to
bold action to end U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq, rebuild our
democracy and create a green economy.
THE 2008 PEACE FIRST! STANDARD
• Peace in Iraq
Secure funding for our troops
Vote to fund troop pay and protection during responsible and prompt
withdrawal of forces and bases from Iraq, and to fund full veterans’ benefits.
Cut off funding for war in Iraq
Vote against funding for military action and bases in Iraq and the Middle East.
Convert funding to rebuilding Iraq
Vote to fund emergency relief for Iraqi refugees, Iraqi-led reconstruction,
and regional diplomacy.
• Peace Conversion to Sustainability and Justice
Secure funding for essential security
Vote to fund essential national and domestic security programs, such as harbor
security and first responders, as identified by the 9/11 commission.
Cut the defense budget to reasonable levels
Vote to cut the defense budget 25% by eliminating funding for obsolete and wasteful
Pentagon programs.
Convert funding to equal rights, a green economy and constitutional integrity:
Equal Rights
• Medicare expansion to cover all Americans by 2015
• 100% funding for education including Special Education, Head Start,
and the Dream Act, and replacement of "No Child Left Behind" by 2012
A Green Economy
• $10 Billion increase in annual federal investment in renewable energy and
“green collar” jobs each of in the next 5 years
• 50% cut in fossil fuel burning by 2018
Constitutional Integrity
• 100% verified paper ballot for every vote in every state by 2012
• Full investigation and punishment of racist disenfranchisement by 2010