Do Not Let Another Vote Be Lost, Yet Again

Guest Post by Fariha Tayyab

After interviewing with a reporter from the Houston Chronicle mid last week on the Muslim community's reaction to recent racial uproar in both campaigns, I got to thinking, thinking a lot to where I felt a bit trapped. And now I've decided to speak or rather explain to everyone who is confused as to why I support who I do and why it matters.

(Side note: For those of you who would like to read a critique of Obama and his campaign addressing each issue area please let me know. I have a great thorough email sent from a friend titled "Obama and the Muslim vote")

Maybe it's not about the lost vote, maybe it's about a sincere vote that is lost yet again.

We live in a bi-world. Bi-partisan to be more specific. It is so because well we didn't really do anything and more importantly because we chose not to. Ross Perot, as is well known, a 3rd party candidate came really close to being in the main race, but yet he was polling below 10percent. Ralph Nader, who is running as an independent this year and a fourth time in national polls. He polled above 5 percent and event reached 10percent at one time. Therefore, a vote like Ralph Nader's isn't wasted or 'lost'...That's just a myth what we're taught. The democrats even wrongly blamed, Nader for Bush's victory in 2000 (with logic in mind that if Nader's voters would have voted for Kerry maybe he would have won stepping aside all other significant reasons why Gore lost). Furthermore, Bush defeated Al Gore in FL by around 500 votes and Nader received close to 100k votes in Florida. Many other 3rd party candidates also received more than those 500 or so votes... A point to just let flush through your mind, so your vote is not lost, it's not unheard, its not overlooked. Those who do stand up for their principles, well its seen. More, here.

In eight years, everyone seems to have been worked up and passionate about this election. We seem to be taking no more of Bush-it. So the word change resonates throughout our political thought processes. And yet really its just not change, just a tweek in how things were and a beacon of hope that seems to shift and sway to where it almost obliterated concept of reliability and consistency. Whether it be the children from Ron Clark elementary, or the pyscho 'kill him' chanters at McCains rally's, or the man who names his baby Sarah McCain Palin, or even the movie Obsessions, or even Republican leadership changing their stance or shifting out of the scene because "Palin is like a cancer", or any of the enthused Obama supporters and all their interesting actions, or maybe even all the Muslims who vote together.

Your best teacher is your last mistake.

Vote together for a man who knows he has gotten our vote; who understands he doesn't have to step into ONE MOSQUE, because he already has our vote. He doesn't have to stay consistent and can unconditionally support [apartheid] Israel and offer more than 3billion in aid annually, create tension and talk about proactive action for Pakistan insurgencies, or the many other issues a Muslim vote would be 'concerned' with and seem to have always been a bit too concerned with. He has our vote, and he will regardless. Not because we love Obama, but because we choose to be involved to not get another Bush or McCain, who God forbid wins. The thought of that makes us cringe. Expediency or sincere voting?

What about the issues that McCain doesn't mention? Obama does? What about the issues neither mentions? The one's that affect us first and foremost? What about the military budget? Alternative Energy? Corporate welfare and crime? the Justice system? US Policy on Middle East? Etc. All these affect us but yet Obama doesn't address them. Address the real issues.

He's a writer, a professor, a lawyer, a politician, a activist, a journalist, a speaker, a trooper, a hero. A man who started more than 10 nonprofits, one who broke Guinness book of world records for most speeches given in a day, whose one of multiple books was ranked 38th amongst 100 top pieces of Journalist for 20th century, who both Life and Time magazine named 100 most influential Americans in 20th century and even in history. Not to mention his running mate, Matt Gonzalez, who is also phenomenal in a myriad of ways, that this email would only drag on, but most of us know him as the one who almost won mayoral race in San Francisco in 2003.

Other campaigns are driven by organizations and political action committees and platforms that definitely have their own agenda. Their money is supporting within both campaigns. Has anyone really stopped to think about this, in depth or even on surface level? It's almost as if you pay and you get your voice heard. So then what is change? Because the people putting money in don't seem to be wanting it. Nader only accepts money from individuals and in turn for the last 30+ or so years Nader puts interest of the people at the front. "Nader raiders" didn't just come and go, they came and stayed, they wrote books about him, their hero, they worked to continue to establish his non profits, they amongst everything else voted for him, and shifted the trend.

The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference.

One's not sure what to say, let's just say Obama is Muslim, its a disgust for him to ever admit maybe 1% of him was or could be. It would hurt his campaign which is honestly understandable, because he is all about change and voting for the people. If those who are voting on more shallower terms on basis of surface level and minority status, well maybe there is some triggering factor for doing so. On a shallow note, Nader is first Arab American presidential candidate (his parents were from Lebanon and Catholic) and not only is his stance pro Palestine but he's also not hiding in corners erasing his identity and rather embracing it amongst other things. Random point that doesn't really matter unless your voting on a 'I vote minority' basis. At his fourth round of elections, there is some merit and sincerity in Nader, a trooper. It's about challenging the status quo, and about not giving up. And now he is on the ballot in 45 states.

A leader has the vision and conviction that a dream can be achieved. He inspires the power and energy to get it done.

So the biggest, most comprehensive, overall argument remains: If We don't want McCain, so we vote Obama. Expediency at it's best. However, this doesn't seem to hold immense amounts of logical thought or firmness it just seems to be to some, borderline jargon. As those of us who are Muslim peoples, we come from our ideals. Rather we are our ideals. And our religion and it's fundamental concepts were strived for, even if they weren't achievable within a short time. It was the ideal that mattered, the overall message, and the true values we stood for, that was what kept Muslim thought alive. Never ending struggle now, and the never ending struggle then. We aren't a people to trade off in the least, rather we have patience to the most. So even on an "Islamic" note this doesn't have much standing. What isn't a reality now in four years, isn't going to be a reality ever really if we don't start to make it one and mold things. For those who aren't voting and seem to be a more political Islamic inclined kind of ideology, its because you don't support these candidates because they are both evil. This also to some is flawed logic, however there is an alternative? Yes, indeed.

Once you don't vote your ideals, that has serious undermining affects. It erodes the moral basis of our democracy.

So as Americans we believe in democracy, what was once brought up as democratic ideals and values, but what is not. And not only what has not been but what will not become if we as a people aren't proactive. Change is there, change is real. and if you let it be change is possible. However it is not through the avenues of Mu-Barack. There is no really blessing in that, if we vote for him out of the dislike for McCain.

As Nader explains in an interview, "One feels an obligation, Tim, to try to open the doorways, to try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in the terms of third parties and, and independent candidates; to recognize historically that great issues have come in our history against slavery and women rights to vote and worker and farmer progressives, through little parties that never ran--won any national election. Dissent is the mother of ascent. And in that context, I have decided to run for president."

Be real with yourself. Be a trooper. Be a true American and holdup democratic ideals, in whichever candidate you find it in and God bless. But today only Ralph Nader seems to be real and about change.

Do not let another vote be lost, yet again!

*Nader/Gonzalez 08
*All italics where Nader quotes. Glad you enjoyed

Support Obama But Vote McKinney?

The Green Party Presidential ticket of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente brings something special and unprecedented to U.S. politics. Not only are they the first all women-of-color ticket in recent memory to get ballot access in most states. These women take racial justice seriously, and have made strides to put gender at the center of a progressive agenda. For these two, it's more than skin deep.

They're the Presidential ticket that talks about amnesty for undocumented workers, that opposes guest worker programs as riddled with abuses, because they believe a just immigration reform means addressing the trade and economic policies fueling poverty and migration. They're the ticket that demands reparations in the form of federal investment in low-income families and communities of color, to end racial disparities in health, housing, education, and incarceration. They call for the right of return for Katrina survivors; an end to prisons for profit, to the War on Drugs. And they speak of reproductive justice – not just the right to abortion, but actual healthcare access; of freedom from coerced or uninformed medication and sterilization.

Nowhere do we see Nader, or white male Third-Party-politics-as-usual, bringing in these issues – this slice on life, or sensitivity. McKinney, for instance, points out that Social Security cuts will disproportionately harm women. The Green Party candidates offer to do us the public service of contesting Palin's brand of "feminism." Let's take them up on it.
. . .

But each vote for them contributes towards building unprecedented ballot access, federal funds, and an inroad to the national debates, for the Green Party. If McKinney / Clemente get 5% of the national vote, the Green Party qualifies for millions of dollars in federal matching funds for 2012 – a significant dent in the two-party system. Under the electoral college's winner-takes-all system, not every vote for a major candidate counts; but by supporting a minor candidate, we can strategically use our votes to institutionalize a progressive platform.

. . .

In the words of McKinney herself: "We are in this to build a movement. We are willing to struggle for as long as it takes to have our values prevail in public policy." She reminds us, "Voters in this country are scared into not voting their hopes, their dreams, their aspirations. But in Bolivia and Ecuador and Argentina and Chile and Nicaragua and Spain, and India and Cote d'Ivoire and Haiti, voters were not afraid to vote their hopes and dreams, and guess what. Their dreams came true. Ours can, too."
. . .

There is not a contradiction between supporting Obama's victory over McCain, and spreading the word on McKinney – because we believe her politics should be included in the debates; and believe all voters should be aware she and the Greens exist as an option.

There is not a contradiction between spending time to campaign for Obama in key swing states, and pledging your own vote to McKinney – particularly in Democratic strongholds such as California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Oregon, or Washington, where Obama will win landslide; or Republican states where McCain is assured of victory.

As an example, in 2004, Kerry beat Bush in Massachusetts 62% to 32%, by over 700,000 votes. 5% of the vote would have been around 140,000 ballots, but third party candidates actually got around 1% altogether, or 27,000. This election, 35 states are not swing states.

. . .

In August, AntiWar.com featured a line-up of McCain, Obama, Nader, and Barr. Incidentally, reflecting a common trend in much progressive media, over 80% of the site's columnists and regular contributors are male. When challenged by readers about McKinney's absence, the editors explained that both she, and ultra-rightwing, xenophobic, anti-abortion Chuck Baldwin – who seeks to cut all federal investment in communities of color – were omitted. Not due to bias against McKinney as a black woman, but because, an editor flippantly wrote, both of the candidates are "pretty perfect" on foreign policy. If McKinney's stance was so perfect, why wouldn't the site choose to promote her as a standard-bearer? And why instead place her on equal footing with a racist, sexist Baldwin? Besides not considering economic inequality, immigration policy or internal colonization as relevant to imperialism, AntiWar.com must simply have not viewed her as a serious contender.

Why has McKinney had more trouble getting attention from left organizations and institutions compared to Nader, Green Party candidate in 2000? After all, she, too, champions universal healthcare under a single-payer system; progressive taxation; repealing free trade agreements and abolishing the anti-union Taft-Hartley act. She takes a stronger stance against war and occupation, urging an immediate and orderly withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan. And she has vocally opposed the bail out.
. . .

The right-wingers have meticulously learned to rig the electoral system in their favor. Let's take it back.

Vote truth this year, and work for it next.

Source: OpEd News

Still On The Fence?

Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr have been excluded from the Presidential Debate Schedule. However, if you'd like more information about the corporate, establishment, "different name, same game" candidates be sure to watch the upcoming debates:

All four debates will begin at 9pm ET, 6pm PT and last for 90 minutes. Both campaigns also agreed to accept the CPD’s participation rules for third-party candidate participation. Third-party candidates will be included if they poll 15% or above in at least 5 national polls.

Each debate will be broadcast on the major broadcast networks, including CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX. They will also be aired on cable news channels such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and C-SPAN.

Here is a break down of what each debate will consist of:

1. First Presidential Debate - Foreign Policy & National Security
Date: Friday, September 26 – Site: University of Mississippi – Topic: Foreign Policy & National Security – Moderator: Jim Lehrer – Staging: Podium debate – Answer Format: The debate will be broken into nine, 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment. After these initial answers, the moderator will facilitate an open discussion of the topic for the remaining 5 minutes, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment

2. Vice Presidential Debate – Foreign & Domestic Issues
Date: Thursday, October 2nd – Site: Washington University (St. Louis) – Moderator: Gwen Ifill – Staging/Answer Format: Debate will consist of both foreign and domestic policy questions asked by the moderator. Format will be similar to the presidential debates.

3. Second Presidential Debate – Town Hall Meeting
Date: Tuesday, October 7 – Site: Belmont University – Moderator: Tom Brokaw – Staging: Town Hall debate – Format: The moderator will call on members of the audience (and draw questions from the internet). Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, for a total of 1 minute, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment. In the spirit of the Town Hall, all questions will come from the audience (or internet), and not the moderator.

4. Third Presidential Debate - Domestic and Economic Issues
Date: Wednesday, October 15 – Site: Hofstra University – Topic: Domestic and Economic Issues – Moderator: Bob Schieffer – Staging: Candidates will be seated at a table – Answer Format: Same as First Presidential Debate – Closing Statements: At the end of this debate (only) each candidate shall have the opportunity for a 90 second closing statement.

Hijab Flutter/Additional Information: You Decide 2008

Looking For An Alternative?

It seems you aren't the only one. Ralph Nader's got an exploratory committee out and about, and here's what they are saying:

Maybe we’re wrong.

Maybe the Democrats and Republicans will nominate Presidential candidates this year who will stand up against the war profiteers, the nuclear industry, the credit card industry, the corporate criminals, big oil, and the drug and health insurance industries.

We doubt it.

But hope springs eternal.

In the meantime, take a few minutes and explore with us an idea.

The idea is this—1,000 citizens in every Congressional district.

Each and every one committed to challenging the corporate powers that have a hammerlock on our political and economic systems.

Organized citizen power facing off against corporate power.

In this election year – 2008.

Instead of spending this election year sitting back and watching the corporate candidates spin their vapid mantras – hope, experience, change.

Instead of spending the year complaining about inertia, exhaustion, and apathy.

Let us instead weigh the possibility of pulling together half a million dedicated citizens collectively rising up off our couches and organizing a ground force in every Congressional district in the country.

A ground force of citizens who are informed, committed, tenacious advocates for a just future.

This is what we are contemplating.

Something new.

Something big.

Something bold.

Something that works.

Something that will prod young and old alike.

To join in a mass push back against the corporate powers that are dictating our future.

No one person can get us there.

But one person is ideally suited to lead this grassroots force – if he chooses to do so and runs as the citizens’ candidate for President in 2008.

And that one person is Ralph Nader.

Check them out and get involved HERE.