It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Showing posts with label U.S. Presidential election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Presidential election. Show all posts
So Fox had their debate last night without Ron Paul.
I saw the very beginning of the forum, in which Brit Hume said that ‘one of these five men will be the next President of the United States’ — a statement which I found presumptuous.
They claimed its because they only invited candidates with double digit standings in the National Polls. Well Ron Paul is ahead of Fred Thompson in New Hampshire. And it was a New Hampshire debate. But well....fair and balanced as Fox is they did not want him there. Any excuse would do not to feature the only Republican candidate opposed to the War in Iraq. And the result was a very boooooring political forum that fell flat.
Paul has been one of this campaign's biggest surprises. Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee have seen their popularity fluctuate, but Paul has continued to climb in polls (he's at 10 percent in the latest CNN/WMUR New Hampshire poll, well ahead of Thompson)."It's annoying not able to participate in the debate," said Paul, adding that Fox News reporters and commentators "are war mongerers who don't want to hear other opinions."
The decision by Fox to limit participation in the forum infuriated Paul supporters and even drew the ire of the New Hampshire Republican Party, which withdrew its sponsorship of the event.
Fox had invited Republican candidates Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Fred Thompson to the forum, but excluded Paul as well as California congressman Duncan Hunter.
Paul protested, arguing that he raised $20 million in the last quarter of 2007, almost the same amount as Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, a Research 2000 poll published in the Concord Monitor released Sunday showed Paul garnering 7 percent of the vote, besting Thompson and only 1 point behind Giuliani in the state.
On Saturday the New Hampshire Republican party expressed its disappointment with the decision to exclude Mr. Paul and Representative Duncan Hunter of California by severing its partnership with Fox.
“We believe that it is inconsistent with the first in the nation primary tradition to be excluding candidates in a pre-primary setting,” said Fergus Cullen, chair of the state G.O.P. party. “All candidates regardless of how well known they are or how much money they’ve raised should be treated equally here.”
The New Hampshire G.O.P. has been in discussions with Fox to include all the candidates in the forum, but the network said that it was only inviting candidates who received double digit support in national polls.
On Saturday, Fox News Channel issued a brief statement from David Rhodes, its vice president of news: “We look forward to presenting a substantive forum which will serve as the first program of its kind this election season.”
The voice that Fox News wouldn’t broadcast Sunday night came through loud and clear to the more than 400 Ron Paul fans who jammed into the Crowne Plaza hotel’s ballroom here Sunday afternoon to hear his alternative vision for America.
The crowd, representing many of the outliers of the American political spectrum, waved placards and American flags as they repeatedly rose to their feet.
If nothing else, Paul’s backers, who include pro wrestler Glen Jacobs (aka “Kane”) and former Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr., are more overtly enthusiastic about their candidate than most political activists.
That energy could make Paul’s primary day performance here a compelling undercard for Tuesday’s marquee matchups of Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney .
In a Concord Monitor poll this week, Paul was one point behind Rudy Giuliani , well within the margin of error, for fourth place,with Fred Thompson behind them. Finishing behind Paul could be a jarring blow for better-known candidates who hope to compete for the nomination nationally.
“It makes [Fox] look so foolish,” Paul said after his speech. “What do they have against democracy?”
Note that I have been predicting Paul would do well in NH for sometime now , and the polls show that.
If you want to use polls the latest Rasmussen Reports has him tied for third place in New Hampshire with Iowa winner Mike Huckabee at eleven percent (11%) making Fox look even more foolish. Fred Thompson is at four percent (4%) in the state in that poll, and Rudy is only at nine percent (9%).
Fox loves to promote unbridled capitalism as the solution to everything. Well here is what happens when the market responds to such obvious politcal bias and censorship. Ya hit them where it hurts, in the pocket book.
Following Fox News exclusion of US Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul in a Sunday debate, many of his supporters called for a boycott of sponsors and - perhaps worse - shorting Fox parent company News Corp's stock.
Maybe it's just a reflection of the market overall but News Corp's shares really dropped this past week as seen by the chart below.
Coincidence? Perhaps. Then again....
The exclusion of Dr. Paul has backfired as major newspapers in the state of New Hampshire have jumped all over the story....and it's not a story of how some lowly candidate has been told to stay home by Fox News because he doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning. The stories instead ask "How and Why?". How could Ron Paul not be invited when Rudy Giuliani performed much worse in Iowa than Paul, who managed to crack double digits with 10% of the vote? Why is Ron Paul not invited to a state debate where he is presently polling better than three other invitees in New Hampshire?
Fox News for us is a guilty pleasure. We watch it, we've appeared on Fox and we certainly do not encourage the shorting of a company's shares.....but the decision to leave Ron Paul out of this debate was a "bonehead" one to say the least made by individuals who we suspect do not have a full grip on reality.
The Republican GOP in New Hampshire has now backed out of sponsoring the debate, even though it will still go on as planned. The headlines on Monday, however, will be "Where was Ron Paul?" and his New Hampshire exposure is bound to be twofold as a result.
Paul has a real base in the Republican party and can build delegate status, with such an open race. As this liberal Washington state commentator correctly points out.
I stopped going out of my way to deliberately antagonize and belittle the Paul campaign a couple months ago. It was mainly because he ran and is running a real race. The guy raised $20 million in a quarter. Despite not spending a nickel he got 10 percent of the vote in Iowa - more than Giuliani - and with how flakey the voters are in the Granite State odds are good he'll do even better in New Hampshire.
Like it or not the guy is a real candidate. This isn't Dennis Kucinich or Tom Tancredo who couldn't get attention if they were holding the last ham sandwich in hungry town. Paul has name recognition. The way things are looking, he will probably be in the race longer than Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. Although there's probably no scenario where Paul can win the nomination it is nowhere out of the realm of possibility that he will control a significant block of delegates which could be a factor should this race be decided at the convention.
The Paulites are playing by all the rules and doing everything you can ask in order to be a valuable part of the nomination process. Right now as you read this there are dewy-eyed Paul supporters signing up to be PCOs and precinct captains laying down the foundation of a good grassroots base. They're doing it across the country. They're doing it in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.
Here in Washington, Democrats are choosing all of their delegates in the caucus while half the Republican delegates are coming from the primary; the open primary. It wouldn't be surprising if Paul came in second or even wins our state's GOP primary.
You see the signs along the road, you read the blog comments and you watch the YouTube videos. In terms of generating excitement the "Paultards" have been kicking the ass every candidate in both parties with the exception of Barack Obama
Paul appeals to pre Reagan Republicans, those who like Barry Goldwater feel the party was taken over by the Moral Majority.
Paul's campaign has helped highlight a growing group of disenfranchised Republicans who say they are being alienated by religious conservatives and others.
Supporter Louise Aitel, a high school teacher from Merrimack, said she was so turned off by the Republican Party's views that she voted for Al Gore in 2000, but will return to the GOP fold tomorrow to cast a ballot for Paul.
"I was so wretchedly tired of religion being part of the state," she said of her 2000 vote.
Paul said yesterday he is working to change the party and hopes his views will be considered.
"If it doesn't transform the Republican party, then it's going to get weaker and weaker," he said, adding that he is trying to "save" the party.
Leno is competing to have maverick Republican candidates on his show to boost his ratings. He had Huckabee on for his inaugral show last week. With the strong libertarian base in LA and California, this will auger well for Paul and for Leno's ratings. That Paul crosses a picket line to do this does not do his cause justice, but the core of his liberaltarian base are union haters so they could care less.
As for Leno he desperately needs content as his latest endeavors show like when last week he had one of his male staff show off his beer belly in a slinky thong. Desperation reeks off the show which has not come to an agreement with its writers like its competitor Letterman did. Having Paul on is unfortunately a win-win. And a big loss to the Writers Guild.
Writers Guild of America members continue to picket outside “The Tonight Show” studios Wednesday as fans wait in line to get into Jay Leno’s show. SEE:
More evidence that the neo-con establishment hates Ron Paul. In this case Fox News is not inviting Paul to their Republican debate Sunday night. Dumb move. But what do you expect from the channel that hates Paul the most.So much for fair or balanced.
Online protests seek to include Ron Paul in NH debate An online protest is growing over presidential candidate Ron Paul's exclusion from a Fox News debate here on Sunday, even though other Republicans receiving fewer votes in Iowa or scoring lower in the polls were invited.
Paul received a fifth-place 10 percent of the GOP vote in Iowa's caucus Thursday, ahead of Rudy Giuliani, who received 3.5 percent. He's also ahead of Fred Thompson in New Hampshire polls, polling 7 percent to Thompson's 2 percent.
But both Giuliani and Thompson still appear to be invited to Sunday evening's debate sponsored by Fox News and the New Hampshire Republican Party. Paul isn't.
That's irked many Paul supporters, who responded by flooding a Fox News Web page on the debate with over 580 comments and creating a "Protest Fox" Web site. It says: "We need to send a message to Fox's Rupert Murdoch & his fellow Neocon buddies that he is not Musharraf and the US is not Pakistan, yet! Fox News cannot just stifle public opinion. debate and impact a primary election by excluding Ron Paul just because they don't like his message of freedom and liberty."
They're also planning protests outside Fox News affiliates. Another likely protest site is Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., which has given Fox News space for a broadcast studio. That's where Sunday's debate will take place.
So why the exclusion? It's hard to say, and Fox News hasn't exactly been forthcoming on this point.
For his part, Paul said he thinks it's because he--alone among Republican candidates--opposes the war in Iraq. After being excluded, Paul explained that he views Fox News as a "propagandist" for the war with editorial views that are hardly in keeping with traditional conservative limited-government principles, according to a story by the Boston Globe.
Adding to the intrigue is that the New Hampshire Republican Party, which is co-sponsoring the debate and presumably has some say in who's invited, published a statement this week saying the media should not be in the "business of excluding serious candidates and talks were continuing with Fox."
And adding to the insult, at least for Paul supporters, is that ABC News is sponsoring a debate at the same place--Saint Anselm College--the evening before. Unlike the Fox News debate on Sunday, however, Ron Paul will be invited to participate.
Of course Fox neo-con commentators just hate Ron Paul.
SEAN HANNITY UPSET ABOUT RON PAUL WINNING DEBATE POLL
While Fox is the voice of America's War,
Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly Duke It Out (09/10/07)
Fox Chatheads Aghast at Ron Paul's Appeal
Ron Paul is the voice of America's Troops. The folks fighting the neo-cons war for them. Paul can say he supports the troops while calling for their withdrawal from Bush's war.
Republican Ron Paul is out with a new TV ad, set to run in New Hampshire through Tuesday's primary, stressing his military credentials.
Patriotic music booms. Soldiers salute. The announcer begins: "A proud military veteran who served our nation. Ron Paul salutes and supports our troops who protect and defend our freedom." A flag waves. The announcer continues, "But who do the troops support? Ron Paul. The record shows they're standing up for him." The ad concludes: "Ron Paul is their choice for commander-in-chief."
His campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said Paul "has long been a praised as staunch advocate for veterans' issues." Still, he "wants to bring the troops home from Iraq" because he would rather America "never again sends out brave soldiers to war unless doing so is necessary for our defense," according to Benton. Whether his anti-war message will appeal to New Hampshire veterans is hard to say.
While being dissed by the Republican establishment and its neo-con media flacks the real libertarian base of the pre-Reagan Republicans comes out in favour of Paul.
Congressman Ron Paul will be joined in the last days of the New Hampshire campaign by former Congressman and conservative stalwart Barry Goldwater, Jr.
"We are truly honored to have this legendary conservative family here to support Dr. Paul and bring his message to New Hampshire voters," said Jared Chicoine, NH State Coordinator. "A Goldwater endorsement sends an unmistakable message about what Ron Paul really means to the Republican Party."
Son of the late conservative senator from Arizona, Mr. Goldwater himself served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Carrying on his father's legacy of fighting for small government and individual liberty, the former Congressman endorsed Ron Paul for President in November of 2007.
New Hampshire is going to be another win for Paul but will the media finally take notice? Only if he succeeds in coming in fourth again and burying both Thomspon and Guilliani once and for all. And his chances are very good in this most libertarian of all states.
And while most polls indicate a slug fest between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Arizona's U.S. Senator John McCain on the Republican side of the fight, another Republican has been waiting behind the curtain for some time now: Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
Paul has endeared himself to legions of supporters with his grandfatherly conviction and steady, libertarian-style message against the Iraq War, for downsizing goverment with lower taxes, and against the erosion of Constitutional rights. Paul's voters are enthusiastic and oftentimes angry. But they have purpose to their anger, fueled as it is by the outrage of seeing America drift ever closer to a socialist "Nanny State."
Tuesday. If Paul can come into the first tier of candidates, say at least fourth or third, his campaign picks up new legitimacy as he will be introduced to America by the mainstream press.
What many traditional Republicans miss is that Ron Paul, like him or not, truly helps show America that the Republican Party is not all lockstep behind the Bush/Cheney Administration when it comes to foreign invasions and domestic surveillance. Since Bush's approval ratings have been in the deep cellar for two years now, having Ron Paul handy to make articulate arguments on liberty and a more prudent foreign policy shows a Republican Party that acknowledges its mistakes.
And even the liberals like him which just further pisses off Fox.
Ron Paul is Bill Maher's New Hero
And he even has support of an anarchist or two....
Nice to note that someone agrees with me. That Ron Paul is not the only Libertarian running for U.S. President. This is from Dan Alba, libertarian supporter of Ron Paul. And while he is critical of Kucinich he manages to point out what Paul and Kucinich hold in common.
If Ron Paul is not the most worthy presidential candidate in light of his four-decade track record of preserving individual liberty, states' rights, and national sovereignty; standing up to the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and special interests; and through it all, strictly limiting the bounds of his own power and that of the federal government by obeying the Constitution at every turn — if he is not the candidate who will address the ills by eradicating the cause instead of simply treating the symptom — then one doesn't exist.
Yet there are others, like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, who, like Ron Paul, are against nation-building, the Iraq war and its escalation, and who are for restoring civil liberties by eighty-sixing the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act, and the like. They even cite the Constitution on occasion — by far, more often than do any of the other candidates on either side, minus Paul. But therein lies a basic and vital difference between someone like Ron Paul and the Congressman himself: Ron Paul doesn't just reference the supreme law of the land when relevant to a particular position he holds; he zeroes-out his every legislative action at the Constitution.
Dennis Kucinich is an honorable Congressman for his principled bravery in the face of mercantilistic mafiosi and war-profiteers, and his humanitarian compassion is perhaps second-to-none amongst all presidential candidates. He and Paul were the only Members of Congress who defied AIPAC and other war propagandists by voting against the fraudulent Rothman-Kirk Resolution which called on the UN to charge Iranian President Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide based on words he didn't even say.
He's a refreshing rarity in a Congress full of pandering partisans, hyper-statists, and outright traitors. I am proud to utter the words "Congressman Kucinich."
And it is not just libertarians who are noting the importance of Paul and Kucinich and their anti-war stances. The liberal left in the U.S. is also embracing Paul as the libertarian right embraces Kucinich.
Of the multitude of mainstream 2008 Presidential candidates, there are only three who are truly antiwar.Two of them are running as Democrats, one as a Republican.The two Democrats have little money in the bank, are polling in the low single digits and are clearly headed nowhere fast.The antiwar Republican was in much the same boat as Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel the first few weeks of his Presidential bid.
But now his campaign has started to gain momentum: he has broken through the media wall of silence with recent fundraising success and his poll numbers are moving up in the early states of New Hampshire and Iowa.That candidate’s name is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.This poses a dilemma for any liberal who opposes the Iraq war and the overall war-mongering and empire building of the United States government.
As I wrote in a previous article, a typical liberal will be opposed to Ron Paul on most issues, though Paul is very ‘liberal’ on the questions of war and peace, civil liberties and drug laws.Yet Paul is the only candidate besides Kucinich and Gravel that can be trusted to keep his word and bring the troops back home immediately.And Kucinich and Gravel are simply not making any headway in their respective campaigns.
How can liberals balance their desire for the social programs proposed by Hillary and gang against the near certainty that candidates such as Clinton and Obama will continue Bush’s Middle East war policies, albeit on a scaled-down level?Which should be more important, ending the military conflict and bringing the troops home or expanding the welfare state?The choice seems difficult one, until one digs a little deeper.
The first point I would to make is that even if antiwar liberal’s plans on voting Democratic in the General Election, it does not hurt the Democrats chances in November, 2008 to switch over and vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary.The defection of large numbers of Democrats to vote for Paul would send a very clear and unambiguous message to the eventual Democratic nominee: take an antiwar stance or risk losing liberal votes to a Third Party candidate.
The more important point I would like to make, though, is that even if Ron Paul were to ascend to the Presidency, it would not at all be a bad thing for liberal social policy.Paul is opposed to the income tax and wants to eliminate host of federal agencies, ranging from the IRS to Homeland Security.He is ardently pro-gun ownership, anti-choice and would definitely veto any bill that would expand health care benefits.Yet, none of these domestic positions he holds would likely have a practical impact on the actual functioning of government were he to take office in 2009.As President, he would hold no authority to unilaterally eliminate federal agencies or cut taxes or benefits. Any changes would have to take place with the approval of Congress.
But here’s the thing: if a war-mongering liberal Democrat takes office, there still will be no expansion of welfare programs that liberals love.The ‘catch’ with voting for a candidate such as Clinton or Obama, is that their policies on war and defense budgets will likely crowd out any attempt to make a significant expansion of government programs to help the poor and middle class.A prime example is health care.I, personally, am much more in tune with Hillary’s view on health care than I am with Ron Paul’s.Yet, with the current budget deficits and the expansion of the U.S. military expenditures, where is Hillary or Obama or Edwards going to find the money to expand health care coverage?The answer is: they won’t.Health care in America will remain the same, whether under a liberal Democrat or conservative Republican.Any changes that might take place will be at the very far margins.
However, with a Paul Presidency, there might be some hope for some of those programs in the distant future.Because a President Paul could unilaterally start bringing American troops back home.Not only from Iraq, but also from Afghanistan and Kosovo and Korea.A Paul Presidency could finally result in the long sought after ‘peace dividend’.Let’s face it, from a liberal perspective; the expansion of the welfare state can only happen if America scales back its imperial ambitions.Though Ron Paul does not advocate any expansion of the welfare state, he would undoubtedly do much to downsize the American Empire.
And as I have said before given that neither has a chance to win their party's primary they would make a terrific Third Party ticket. Just the thing to mobilize popular opposition to the War and to politics as usual.
It was a debacle last night for the Democratic Presidential Leadership Debate on CNN. It was all fluff and personal attacks encouraged by Wolf Blitzer and his team. There they came the eight candidates for president...nope wait a minute there are only seven.
I was watching and said hey where was Mike Gravel. Well he got locked out. You see it's all about money. But did Wolfie bother to tell us that. Nope. I had to dig around to find this;
Mike Gravel, the former senator from Alaska, will be excluded from this debate. According to Associated Press reports, Gravel didn't meet the fundraising requirement set by CNN. All eight candidates were charged with raising at least $1 million to be invited to the debate and, by September, Gravel raised about $240,000.
So it's not that you're a candidate but that you are a candidate that meets the fund raising demands of CNN!!! Of course CNN is simply doing what MSNBC had already done to Senator Gravel. It seems that media wants to determine who the winners are. Ah say it ain't so. Actually if CNN had their way they would have dumped Kucinich too. But he raised enough money.
So Wolf did his best to avoid treating Kucinich as a contender. This article gives a good review of just how pathetic the treatment of Kucinich was by Blitzer and Co. And the bias was documented by rival MSNBC.
At 8:26, with Kucinich not having had the opportunity to say one word, CNN asked all the candidates to say whether they would support the Democratic nominee no matter what. They all said yes, except for Kucinich, who took the opportunity to say 10 words, receiving huge applause. His words were: "Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy." A little vaguely worded, but I don't think that vagueness was Kucinich's intention. I think his intention was to contrast his own position with that of most of the other people on the stage. If he is not nominated, he is not going to be able to support the nominee.
Half an hour into this train wreck, no candidate had had an opportunity to speak to their priorities, but we heard a lot about CNN's. At 8:27 CNN asked Obama about immigration. At 8:29 WB dumbed this down and asked all the candidates for opinions on giving drivers' licenses to undocumented people. At 8:32 Kucinich got a chance to say his 11th word. He shifted the topic to NAFTA and took exception to the stupid question, refusing to answer it, winning loud applause.
Then CNN started asking various candidates about education, and for the first time asked Kucinich a non yes/no question. But instead of sticking with education, the topic of the questions before and after Kucinich's, WB asked Kucinich what he disagrees with labor unions on. Kucinich's answer was good, but not inspired. Maybe after 37 minutes, the Congressman had drifted off into daydreaming.
After education, CNN asked every candidate except Kucinich about Pakistan. At the end of this segment, at 8:52, Kucinich said "Hello? Hello?" But CNN refused to ask him a question.
Next CNN turned to Iraq, and this time Kucinich was included. He said that Congress should cut off the funding [big applause]. Then he answered the Pakistan question that CNN had refused to ask him. Blitzer quickly cut him off.
At 8:58, CNN came back to Kucinich on China trade, and he nailed it. And he criticized Edwards for having voted for normal trade relations with China. Edwards dodged the question. And Edwards criticized NAFTA, although he has made clear he will not end it.
When WB finally turned to Kucinich, rewording an audience member's question, he said "You were the only one who voted against the PATRIOT Act..."
"That's because I read it," Kucinich interjected to huge applause.
Kucinich nailed the question and turned to the topic of preventing an attack on Iran as well. WB saw what was coming and tried to cut him off, but Kucinich said "Impeach them now!" [huge applause]
Them. He did not say Cheney only.
Kucinich was only permitted to speak that one time during the debate's entire second hour.
From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum There were two periods during the debate where Clinton and Obama dominated the debate. Members of the audience, as well as Kucinich, verbalized that they were upset. Although Wolf Blitzer promised all the candidates would have ample time to speak, the clock says otherwise.
Here are the speaking times for the second half of the debate:
When the candidates were asked abut labour unions, specifically a question bashing Teachers Unions for not allowing merit pay and protecting bad teachers, only Kucinich challenged the premise that unions were bad. He said he was a member of union, IATSE, that his dad was a teamster and he spoke for working people. for the working class. Yep he actually said 'working class'. Way to go Kucinich. Voice of the working class. But of course that voice was stifled by Wolf and Co. at every opportunity.
"Look, I know that I'm a long shot, but so are a lot of Americans, and they're in a much more difficult position than I'm in because they're threatened with losing their jobs, their wages are stagnate, they don't have health care benefits, their retirement's in jeopardy or their home is in jeopardy," he said.
"What I stand for is central to the hopes and aspirations of the American people, and as they understand that, my support starts to grow."
When it came to predictable questions about migrant workers Kucinich nailed it.
The rest of the responses: Biden - no; Clinton - no; Edwards - no; Dodd - no.
Dennis Kucinich has the best answer, telling Blitzer: "I take issue with your description of people being illegal immigratns....they're undocumented." There are no illegal human beings. "I take exception to the way you framed that question," he tells Blitzer.
Eugene V. Debs, the leader of the Socialist Party of the United States, who ran for President of the United States while in jail for opposing WWI ,was born today.
"The old form of trade unionism," cried Debs, "no longer meets the demands of the working class ... It is now positively reactionary, and is maintained, not in the interests of the workers who support it, but in the interests of the capitalist class who exploit the workers." So long as the working class was parceled out among thousands of separate unions, united economic and political action would be impossible. The IWW provided new hope.
He was a popular socialist leader who championed the workers cause and in return even those who politically disagreed with him on the left praised him.
"When the working class unites, there will be a lot of jobless labor leaders."Eugene Debs, 1905 speech to the IWW Convention
We could use a Debs today. Especially in the U.S. Presidential Elections. There is a need for a third party and Debs recognized that it should be a party of the working people. The other two of course represent the ruling classes regardless of how inclusive they may be.
"The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles." Eugene V. Debs
Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, May 6, 2007; Page D02
NEW YORK -- The politician took the stage amid red balloons and American flags and spoke his famous fighting words: "I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it."
With this, Eugene V. Debs last week announced his sixth bid for U.S. president
Dead man running.
The real Eugene V. Debs passed away in 1926, after five unsuccessful bids for the presidency from 1900 to 1920. But actor Brian Pickett is staging a modest, mock presidential run in his name, starting with Wednesday night's campaign kickoff in a tiny, crowded bar in Manhattan's East Village.
The actual Debs ran on the Socialist Party ticket -- the fifth time from a prison cell -- after being convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for speaking out against World War I. Though never even close to being elected, he became a national figure who galvanized people with his fervor and idealism. Pickett's theatrical performance, to continue in various forms until the 2008 election, "will resurrect this fiery leader from historical bondage," according to the campaign literature.
The quadrennial season of windbaggery is upon us. Canned speeches, quick retractions, the same old sound bites -- we're in for months and months of it. The more we hear, the more we pine for something authentic. This small-time utopian campaign speaks to that frustration, said Pickett, 28, who teaches drama to New York public school students and has appeared in independent theater productions.
Pickett, like Debs, is tall and wiry. You could even say his gaze echoes Debs biographer Nick Salvatore's description: "piercing yet loving." On Wednesday, Pickett wore a three-piece suit with watch fob and spectacles. As the race develops, he plans to work with campaign manager Sophie Nimmannit, 27, the "Red Genie" -- who wore a short red dress, red feather hat, slash of red lipstick and a scarf printed with the word "Vote" -- in street, bar and theater performances in New York and other cities ( http://www.myspace.com/votedebs).
"I wish you were all socialists," Pickett told his audience of about 35 people. They were artists, activists, at least one Wall Streeter -- and they laughed. Even in Debs's time, many of those who came to hear his impassioned speeches were not socialists. He attracted working- and middle-class people and whipped them into such a frenzy that at one event, according to Salvatore, in the book "Eugene V. Debs: Citizen and Socialist," one woman asked another, "Is that Debs?" and the first answered, "Oh no, that ain't Debs -- when Debs comes out, you'll think it's Jesus Christ."
Debs, originally from Terre Haute, Ind., married an upper-class woman who became famous for wearing diamonds to visit him in jail, and he grew more radical as he got older. His life spanned that brief window when socialism was not yet a dirty word but rather a new idea from Europe. He tried to Americanize it, claiming Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau as precursors, wrote Salvatore. America was becoming the greatest industrial power of the world, and the questions socialism addressed were on everyone's mind. In 1912, Debs drew 6 percent of the national presidential vote.
Things have changed. The socialist demands of Debs's time -- the eight-hour workday, abolition of child labor, equal pay for equal work -- have become standard, if not always applied. The word "socialist" seldom comes up. And there are new problems.
"Oh where, oh where have my benefits gone, oh where, oh where can they be?" sang a character in Wednesday's show. The finely dressed Capitalist chimed in: "My PDA's beeping, I'm afraid I can't stay. I'm self-employed and I work all day."
"I would vote for him in a New York minute because he speaks his mind," said Andy Shulman, 34, the actor playing the Capitalist, who works a Wall Street day job. He adds that he is not interested in the radical or extreme, but in someone without the slickness and distance of the big campaign.
"Has a dead man ever run for president?" asked Nola Strand, 24, who played accordion for the show. "Dead men have voted."
Pickett's idea came from television's "West Wing," when Jimmy Smits's character, Matthew V. Santos, ran for president, and fans of the show donned "Vote Santos" shirts and bought "Vote Santos" mugs. If a fictional character could gain a constituency, why not a dead one?
But the ardors of a Debs campaign could wear on him.
In 1900, Debs crisscrossed the country and slept upright on long train trips, refusing to take a Pullman berth with a bed because of labor problems at that company. In 1908, he traveled on his own Red Special train. His speeches could run to two hours, and he would often give 10 a day.
Pickett said he's not sure he has the funds to command a 2008 Red Special. He cut Debs's speeches to something like sound bites, which often sound familiar, except for the florid language. (On war: "The working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both.")
It all seems very strange to me now, taking a backward look, that my vision was so focalized on single objective point that I utterly failed to see what now appears as clear as the noonday sun.... The skirmish lines of the American Railway Union were well advanced. A series of small battles were fought and won without the loss of a man.... Next followed the final shock--the Pullman strike--and the American Railway Union again won, clear and complete. The combined corporations were paralized and helpless. At this juncture there were delivered, from wholly unexpected quarters, a swift succession of blows that blinded me for an instant and then opened wide my eyes....
An army of detectives, thugs, and murderers were equipped with badge and bludgeon and turned loose; old hulks of cars were fired; the alarm bells tolled; the people were terrified; the most startling rumors were set afloat; the press volleyed and thundered; and over all the wires sped the news that Chicago's white throat was in the clutch of a red mob; injunctions flew thick and fast, arrests followed, and our office and headquarters, the heart of the strike, was sacked, torn out and nailed up by the "lawful" authorities of the federal government; and when in company with my loyal comrades I found myself in Cook County jail at Chicago with the whole press screaming conspiracy, treason and murder ... I had another exceedingly practical and impressive lesson in Socialism.
The Chicago jail sentences were followed by six months at Woodstock and it was here that Socialism gradually laid hold of me in its own irresistible fashion. Books and pamphlets and letters from Socialists came by every mail and I began to read and think and dissect the anatomy of the system in which workingmen, however organized, could be shattered and battered and splintered... --From the New York Comrade, April 1902, in Speeches of Eugene V. Debs (New York: International Publisher, 1928)
"Will it succeed?" has been the uppermost question in the minds of thousands of people regarding the effort in co-operation at Ruskin. "Can such an enterprise be made permanent, even if it does attain material success?" and "Will the men and women engaged in it be able to hold together and work together for their common interests?" ... Ruskin HAS SUCCEEDED, and the measure and kind of its success INSURES ITS PERMANENCY and the accomplishing of greater things in the future. We are now in the material stage of development and the close of the first year of co-operation shows a favorable termination to the enterprises started in that time. The year began with the establishment of a co-operative hotel on the old site, it closes with the occupancy of the commodious and substantial structure, herewith illustrated, on the new. THE COMING NATION publishing house is the largest building in this section of Tennessee. It is a frame structure, built entirely of oak, sawed from timber taken from our own land and in our own saw mill. Everything entering into its construction that possibly could be made by Ruskinites is a product of co-operative labor.... --The Coming Nation, July 18, 1896
Not "free silver," not "free trade," not "free gold," not "free high tariff" is what the working class needs. All of these "free" things are like free coffins to be buried in. Our slogan is "Free the Tools of Production." --The People, New York, in Public Opinion, August 6, 1896
Socialist Eugene V. Debs was one of the major players in American politics at the turn of the 20th century. He made five attempts to gain the presidency - in 1900, 1904, 1908 1912 and 1920 - all as the standard bearer of the Socialist Party. He conducted his last campaign from behind the bars of a federal prison. A gifted orator, Debs rivaled William Jennings Bryan in his ability to move a crowd with his words.
Born in Indiana in 1855, Debs went to work for the railroad at age 14 but soon gave it up at his mother's urging. He became active in the union movement forming the American Railway Union, the nation's largest, in 1893. Arrested during the Pullman Strike of 1894, he served six months behind bars. In jail, Debs converted to socialism. He helped found the Social Democratic Party of America in 1897, the Socialist Party in 1901 and the Industrial Workers of the World in 1905. "I am for socialism because I am for humanity" he declared.
He opposed America's entrance into World War I and denounced the Espionage Act designed to silence all antiwar sentiment. In 1918, he received a 10-year prison sentence for his public opposition to the war. At his trial, Debs admitted he spoke the words the federal government considered traitorous and addressed the jury in his own defense. "I am doing what little I can to do away with the rule of the great body of people by a relatively small class and establish in this country industrial and social democracy." A guilty verdict sent Debs to the federal prison in Atlanta.
In 1920, the Socialist Party again nominated him as their presidential candidate and over 915,000 voted for prisoner #9653. President Wilson vigorously denied a request for Deb's pardon in 1921. Finally, Warren G. Harding released Debs under a general amnesty on Christmas Day 1921. Harding asked the old socialist to stop by the White House. "I have heard so damned much about you, Mr Debs, that I am very glad to meet you personally" Harding remarked at their meeting. Debs died in 1926.
References: Currie, Harold W., Eugene V. Debs (1976); Morgan, H. Wayne, Eugene V. Debs: Socialist for President (1973).
This speech was originally delivered in 1904 and shortly thereafter recorded at one of Edison's sound recording studios. By this time Debs was a leading figure in the U.S. Socialist party, and in this impassioned speech describes a time when the socialist party will "win the world" from the 'frenzied revelry of capitalism." "What man," Debs asks, "unless his brain be atrophied and has become blinded can fail to perceive the impending crisis of a capitalist modern age?" The central metaphor of this speech is "the machine," which refers to the the proliferation of new labor-saving technologies, inventions that Debs saw as fundamental to the social revolution. Here Debs celebrates technology as a great equalizer and emancipator of the working classes: "The mute message of the machine, could but the worker understand and could he but heed it, child of his brain, the machine has come to free and not to enslave; to save and not destroy the author of its being... The machine compels the grand army of toil to rally to its tender, to recognize its power."
In 1912, four candidates battled to become President of the United States. Republican incumbent William Howard Taft and Democrat Woodrow Wilson, a moderate governor, represented the two major parties. Former President Theodore Roosevelt, angered over what he felt was a betrayal of his policies by Taft, his hand-picked successor, abandoned the Republican party and founded the Progressive or “Bull Moose” Party. While all four candidates appealed directly to working-class voters, whose votes would prove decisive, by far the most radical platform in the campaign was that of the Socialist Party nominee, Eugene V. Debs. Running for the fourth time, Debs called for the abolition of capitalism rather than for its reform. In this speech accepting the party’s nomination he proclaimed the Socialist Party “the party of progress, the party of the future.” Debs finished last in the contest, receiving 900,000 votes.
Eugene Debs delivering his legendary speech in Canton, Ohio on June 16, 1918.
Comrades, friends and fellow-workers, for this very cordial greeting, this very hearty reception, I thank you all with the fullest appreciation of your interest in and your devotion to the cause for which I am to speak to you this afternoon.
To speak for labor; to plead the cause of the men and women and children who toil; to serve the working class, has always been to me a high privilege; a duty of love.
I have just returned from a visit over yonder, where three of our most loyal comrades are paying the penalty for their devotion to the cause of the working class. They have come to realize, as many of us have, that it is extremely dangerous to exercise the constitutional right of free speech in a country fighting to make democracy safe in the world.
I realize that, in speaking to you this afternoon, there are certain limitations placed upon the right of free speech. I must be exceedingly careful, prudent, as to what I say, and even more careful and prudent as to how I say it. I may not be able to say all I think; but I am not going to say anything that I do not think. I would rather a thousand times be a free soul in jail than to be a sycophant and coward in the streets. They may put those boys in jail—and some of the rest of us in jail—but they cannot put the Socialist movement in jail. Those prison bars separate their bodies from ours, but their souls are here this afternoon. They are simply paying the penalty that all men have paid in all the ages of history for standing erect, and for seeking to pave the way to better conditions for mankind.
If it had not been for the men and women who, in the past, have had the moral courage to go to jail, we would still be in the jungles.
Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In the Middle Ages when the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose towers may still be seen along the Rhine concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth they declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go to war. The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another and to cut one another’s throats for the profit and glory of the lords and barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives.
They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.
And here let me emphasize the fact—and it cannot be repeated too often—that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace.
Yours not to reason why; Yours but to do and die.
That is their motto and we object on the part of the awakening workers of this nation.
If war is right let it be declared by the people. You who have your lives to lose, you certainly above all others have the right to decide the momentous issue of war or peace.
Eugene Debs delivered his Statement to the Court to the Federal Court of Cleveland, Ohio on September 18, 1918 after being convicted of violating the Sedition Act, a protective law passed by Congress to promote the war by banning anti-war propaganda and rhetoric. Under this new law many socialists were unjustly persecuted and stripped of their freedom of speech. As an active socialist, Debs became concerned and attacked American capitalism in an effort to protect first amendment rights. This speech was a plea in his defense for his and other socialists’ freedom of speech. Introduction by Mary Litton Fowler.
Enacts movement from rupture to constitution through identification with marginalized class
Your Honor,years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
Invokes revolutionary tradition
I listened to all that was said in this court in support and justification of this prosecution, but my mind remains unchanged. I look upon the Espionage Law as a despotic enactment in flagrant conflict with democratic principles and with the spirit of free institutions…
oppositional
Your Honor, I have stated in this court that I am opposed to the social system in which we live; that I believe in a fundamental change—but if possible by peaceable and orderly means…
Standing here this morning, I recall my boyhood. At fourteen I went to work in a railroad shop; at sixteen I was firing a freight engine on a railroad. I remember all the hardships and privations of that earlier day, and from that time until now my heart has been with the working class. I could have been in Congress long ago. I have preferred to go to prison…
Mammon: Gospel allusion (oppositional tradition accepted by and borrowed from dominant public)
I am thinking this morning of the men in the mills and the factories; of the men in the mines and on the railroads. I am thinking of the women who for a paltry wage are compelled to work out their barren lives; of the little children who in this system are robbed of their childhood and in their tender years are seized in the remorseless grasp of Mammon and forced into the industrial dungeons, there to feed the monster machines while they themselves are being starved and stunted, body and soul. I see them dwarfed and diseased and their little lives broken and blasted because in this high noon of Christian civilization money is still so much more important than the flesh and blood of childhood. In very truth gold is god today and rules with pitiless sway in the affairs of men.
Invokes providence; expresses sense of rupture between land of plenty and suffering of millions; transfers guilt from providence to society
In this country—the most favored beneath the bending skies—we have vast areas of the richest and most fertile soil, material resources in inexhaustible abundance, the most marvelous productive machinery on earth, and millions of eager workers ready to apply their labor to that machinery to produce in abundance for every man, woman, and child—and if there are still vast numbers of our people who are the victims of poverty and whose lives are an unceasing struggle all the way from youth to old age, until at last death comes to their rescue and lulls these hapless victims to dreamless sleep, it is not the fault of the Almighty: it cannot be charged to nature, but it is due entirely to the outgrown social system in which we live that ought to be abolished not only in the interest of the toiling masses but in the higher interest of all humanity…
Radical extension
I believe, Your Honor, in common with all Socialists, that this nation ought to own and control its own industries. I believe, as all Socialists do, that all things that are jointly needed and used ought to be jointly owned—that industry, the basis of our social life, instead of being the private property of a few and operated for their enrichment, ought to be the common property of all, democratically administered in the interest of all…
I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.
Re-genesis
This order of things cannot always endure. I have registered my protest against it. I recognize the feebleness of my effort, but, fortunately, I am not alone. There are multiplied thousands of others who, like myself, have come to realize that before we may truly enjoy the blessings of civilized life, we must reorganize society upon a mutual and cooperative basis; and to this end we have organized a great economic and political movement that spreads over the face of all the earth.
Communality
There are today upwards of sixty millions of Socialists, loyal, devoted adherents to this cause, regardless of nationality, race, creed, color, or sex. They are all making common cause. They are spreading with tireless energy the propaganda of the new social order. They are waiting, watching, and working hopefully through all the hours of the day and the night. They are still in a minority. But they have learned how to be patient and to bide their time. The feel—they know, indeed—that the time is coming, in spite of all opposition, all persecution, when this emancipating gospel will spread among all the peoples, and when this minority will become the triumphant majority and, sweeping into power, inaugurate the greates social and economic change in history.
In that day we shall have the universal commonwealth—the harmonious cooperation of every nation with every other nation on earth…
Your Honor, I ask no mercy and I plead for no immunity. I realize that finally the right must prevail. I never so clearly comprehended as now the great struggle between the powers of greed and exploitation on the one hand and upon the other the rising hosts of industrial freedom and social justice.
Re-genesis
I can see the dawn of the better day for humanity. The people are awakening. In due time they will and must come to their own.
Re-genesis
When the mariner, sailing over tropic seas, looks for relief from his weary watch, he turns his eyes toward the southern cross, burning luridly above the tempest-vexed ocean. As the midnight approaches, the southern cross begins to bend, the whirling worlds change their places, and with starry finger-points the Almighty marks the passage of time upon the dial of the universe, and though no bell may beat the glad tidings, the lookout knows that the midnight is passing and that relief and rest are close at hand. Let the people everywhere take heart of hope, for the cross is bending, the midnight is passing, and joy cometh with the morning.
I am now prepared to receive your sentence.
Eugene V. Debs
Time Magazine, Monday, Nov. 01, 1926
As it must to all men, Death came last week to Eugene Victor Debs, Socialist.
In Woodstock, Ill., there is a boys' school, a collection of retired farmers, a prison. In the prison in the year 1895 sat a hot-blooded orator† of 40. He was Eugene Victor Debs, labor leader. He was in jail for the violation of an injunction. Back of this event was the story of an Indiana grocery clerk, a locomotive fireman, who became the organizer of the American Railway Union, who twice made the nation feel the fist of unionized labor. The second time was the great strike against the Pullman Co. in 1894 when President Cleveland had to despatch troops to Chicago to quell the riotous bloodshed. Eugene Debs and three others, indicted for conspiracy against the Government, were successfully defended by Clarence S. Darrow. Later Mr. Debs defied an injunction—and that is why he found himself in Woodstock. One day he had a visitor, Socialist Victor L. Berger. The visitor left him an unimportant-looking little book.
Prisoner Debs read it slowly, eagerly, ravenously. The book was Karl Marx's Das Kapital. In the brain of Prisoner Debs there began to simmer a more militant type of Socialism for the U. S. than the mere reading of Utopian books.
Mr. Debs came from his cell with a gospel. In Chicago, 100,000 cheered him as he roared out his speech on "Liberty." Then, strangely enough, he stumped for Candidate Bryan in 1896. A year later the Socialist party was born, and in five presidential elections from 1900 to 1920 (except in 1916) Mr. Debs was a candidate, polling almost a million votes in each of his last two campaigns.
During the World War he attacked war in general and the draft in particular; was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for a speech made in Canton, Ohio, in 1918. Addressing the jury, he told his creed:
"Gentlemen, I have been accused of obstructing the War. I admit it, gentlemen; I abhor war. I would oppose the War if I stood alone. . ..
"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest of the earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."
On Christmas Day, 1921, President Harding pardoned a model prisoner, a broken prophet. Around him he saw his Socialist Party disintegrating; within him he felt his strength ebbing. His speeches seemed almost pathetic; his pen had lost its throb. A month ago he went to a sanitarium in Elmhurst, Ill., where he died, aged 71.
Said Arthur Brisbane, Hearst columnist:
"Eugene V. Debs, a sincere and honest man, is dead, killed by imprisonment inflicted upon him for saying what he thought about the War."
†James Whitcomb Riley once wrote: And there's Gene Debs, a man that stands And jest holds out in his two hands As warm a heart as ever beat 'Twixt here and jedgment seat.
![[Eugene Debs]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vlEpGoB3_aZK5WDpOdidQHGy8415oa241v5bND0-nLlZEEmEGaeeBzGbooBHvwgS5wfC0MVfm04ZuQ6n-Irs0yWyZoyFdApNZ4mTz8=s0-d)
Death Of Laissez-Faire Politics
Libertarians for U.S. PresidentRon Paul Quotes Ayn Rand
Gravel and Paul on PBS