Rocky Anderson for President?

9 posts / 0 new

I heard an interview with him today on NPR Seattle (KUOW) and I like what I heard. I went home and have been looking over his web site and have watched one of the videos and he sounds very progressive. He was a democrat but is fed up with the corporate dominance of both parties.

http://www.voterocky.org/meet_rocky

Rocky advocates:

  • The promotion of the public interest through the defeat of the systemic corruption that has caused massive failures in public policy.
  • An immediate end to the on-going wars
  • Essential health care coverage for all citizens
  • Urgent international leadership by the U.S. to prevent against the most catastrophic consequences of climate disruption
  • Adequate revenues to balance the budget through fair taxation
  • Treatment of substance abuse as a public health
  • Rather than criminal justice, issue
  • Control of the Federal Reserve by the Treasury Department and Congress
  • A balanced budget (or a surplus) except in times of war or major recession
  • An end to the legal concept of corporate “personhood”
  • A constitutional amendment to overrule Citizens United and to allow limits or prohibitions on the corrosive impact of money in our electoral system
  • An end to the stranglehold on our government by the military-industrial complex

I'd suggest checking out the site, watch some videos, read his bio. Pretty damn progressive.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

And here I thought people on the Thom Hartmann message boards liked progressives. Democrats are better than republicans but not nearly enough. Obama is better than Bush but he is still a front man for big business: Wall St., Oil, Monsanto, Federal Reserve, Military Industrial, Health Insurance industries, yet progressives think he's the only choice. He is the only choice the mainstream media will give exposure to for a very good reason.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Voting democratic is doing the same thing we just did and expecting a differenct result. Time to vote for a third party and Rocky Anderson is way more progressive than Obama. He has promised to investigate the crimes of the Bush administration. At least show some interest and get him to the debates whether you cast a fear vote or not at least support a real progressive enough to get him into the debates. Without a real progressive STATESMAN there will be no significant change, just more slow bleeding of the middle class.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Find us a way to make the Justice Party competitive, and you might have something to go with. Anderson certainly says the right things.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, I didn't vote for either wing of the Corporate Party last time. I won't vote for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum this time either.

Maybe at some point, Americans will get fed up with their two major parties just as Europeans are. The Greeks and the Netherlands finally got it. The French elected Tweedle Dee to replace Tweedle Dum. They'll get it the next election cycle when nothing changes.

Americans are really slow learners.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:

Find us a way to make the Justice Party competitive, and you might have something to go with. Anderson certainly says the right things.

That's the thing. We cannot let the media dictate our presidential candidates and pretend everything is always neck and neck because that just puts those hundreds of millions of campaign money right in their pocket. First is finding the right candidate and I think Rocky looks good. After all, how was such a progressive person elected to become mayor of Salt Lake City? He must have some charisma and honesty to win those ultra conservatives over. This is where the people come in. This is where we have to use all our social networking abilities and make sure guys and gals like Rocky Anderson get recognized and get some air time and make it to the debates. The two-sided corporate party needs to be exposed as totally corrupt and self serving. People should be made aware of the difference between a politician and a statesman.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Not to undermine the seriousness of your post but at this point I would take Rocky for President and Bullwinkle for VP.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

I read all the Justice Party one liners at their site. They sound like a good start. I'm not sure where they will distinguish themselves from the Green Party and their national platform, which seems to have most of the same themes but they go into greater specifics, including rationales, about how they want to change the current Federal policies. So I think it will take some time to build a party, and one that will distinguish itself. I've been a Green supporter for years, and its a tough go to get even the peripheral media to take notice of candidates, let alone even begin to include the policy issues they raise.

By default the corporate media only supports their two bought and paid for parties. And once you understand that advertising is the media -- nobody even questions the legitimacy of that -- that news and politics is just entertainment by product, you've got the evolved "free" market fourth estate system of democracy pretty well down. By spinoff, those corporate media politicians and their politics get the attention of all media. Generally the role of the peripheral media gets left (a bit of a pun) to do some criticism in greater depth for those who can read more than two sentences without shifting their attention to something else, which serves to do little more than make people concerned feel more depressed since, as poly likes to put it, their choice is Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Not very inspiring thoughts when I look from that perspective.

Just take this one, one I would consider a pivotal example of a completely transformative attitude towards something now deeply entrenched in our global social system, industrial agriculture. Here's the most I can get from the Justice Party, which is a start, but obviously needs to be fleshed out:

Environmental Justice:

  • Enforce employee and environmental safeguards in trade agreements
  • Ban the Canada-to-Mexico tar sands pipeline and mountain top removal
  • Enhance air and water quality protections by strengthening the EPA
  • Take aggressive action and leadership on the climate crisis and the environment

Here's how the Green Party Platform outlines their take on the environmental justice issue, which of course will never be heard on a stage with the corporate candidates talking about their binary versions of policy making. First they give the broad outline with the heading relating to sustainability:

III. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

A. Energy Policy
B. Nuclear Issues
C. Waste Management
D. Fossil Fuels
E. Renewable Energy
F. Transportation Policy
G. Clean Air / Greenhouse Effect / Ozone Depletion
H. Land Use
I. Water
J. Agriculture
K. Biological Diversity

Then the specifics about Agriculture (sorry to put all this here, but I just wanted to illustrate how much effort has been put into just item J. of the above list, and thus what it takes to establish a competing party with all the differences between it and Tweedledee and Tweedledum:

J. AGRICULTURE

The human species is at the top of the food chain and is, therefore, very vulnerable to the degrading of the environment and the loss of species. If for no other reason than our own preservation, we should work to protect our environment and the diversity of our region’s and planet’s rich life forms.

Factory farming (“industrial farming”) threatens to further erode the family farms and the general quality of life in our rural areas. Family farms are the basis of community-based economics and essential to rural development and a healthy, diverse economy.

The consequences of factory farming are devastating. Open pits of putrefying animal wastes are allowed to discharge into rivers and streams, degrading water and air quality, killing aquatic life and posing serious threats to human health and the environment.

Corporate industrial farming practices are inhumane and cause unnecessary suffering to animals. Industrial farming has changed the type of food we eat, and studies are now demonstrating that nutritional value has been decreased, with resultant immune system impacts.

The story of industrial farming needs to be told. The Green Party strongly opposes the rampant and damaging policies of corporate industrial farming and calls for a national shift away from these practices.

The Green Party opposes the “biodevastation” that Monsanto and related “biotech” companies are engaged in. The actions of Monsanto in trying to subvert labeling of RBGH need to be exposed. Monsanto and other biotech companies need to be brought into the light and their actions made public. For example, over half the soybean production in the United States (for example, “Roundup Ready soya”) is the result of genetically modified seeds. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are the new stealth product of the U.S. transnational corporations.

The acquiescence of the U.S. government to biotech-friendly capitalism, despite the loud protests of governments and peoples around the world, is a scandal. It is unacceptable that consumers purchasing soy products, for example, do not know whether they are eating or drinking genetically modified organisms. If a fish gene has been transferred to a crop to make it more tolerant of cold, consumers should know that they’re ingesting a genetically modified food organism. If a gene has been added to seed stock to make that crop more capable of being heavily doused with pesticides like “RoundUp,” consumers should be warned.

Genetically modified “Terminator” seeds that are more about “intellectual property rights” and corporate profit than they are about sustainable agricultural practices, Third-world economic independence, and health, should be banned. Labeling should fully disclose where genetically engineered (and/or irradiated) food is being supplied. Consumer choice needs to be based on full and complete disclosure. Whether it is Bt corn, genetically modified maize, or GM oilseed that finds its way into a menu of other products, the consumer needs to know and choose.

Ralph Nader has called for consumer revolts. The time has come. The Green Parties and the Green Platforms around the world are united in opposition to genetically engineered “vat food” that is being shoved down our throats. The arrogance of U.S. biotech firms needs to be shown for what it is – food production for profit, not health. Food will be a key part of the next millenium’s struggle for democracy. The Green Party stands in opposition to a gen-food future as delivered by unaccountable mega-transnational corporations.

1. We call for the establishment of an ecologically based sustainable agricultural system that moves as rapidly as possible towards regional/bioregional self reliance.

2. An adequate FOOD SUPPLY is tied to many of our nation’s domestic, export, foreign aid, geopolitical and related overseas goals. We support anti-hunger and “Food Stamp” programs at home, and support assistance to foreign countries and their people that moves them toward SELF-SUFFICIENCY and sustainability in food production.

3. WORLD HUNGER can be best addressed by FOOD SUPPLY INDEPENDENCE. Population growth and accompanying deprivation, which has led to increased poverty and environmental destruction in the Third World, can be replaced by a decent standard of living, and sustainable populations and growth. Goals and policies that aim at sustainable production to end hunger while preserving the environment are crucial for success of these efforts. Food security is a base-line necessity.

4. We call for phasing out the use of man-made pesticides and artificial fertilizers, and funding for research to find acceptable alternatives.

5. We support “Integrated Pest Management” techniques, as an alternative to current chemical-based agriculture.

6. We support the adoption of “organic certification standards” and support regional efforts to broaden this effort by reaching out to and identifying growers and buyers of organic produce.

7. We call for a reconsideration of the potentially far-reaching and unforeseen effects of seed and plant hybridization and especially of genetic engineering in agricultural systems. We are particularly concerned about loss of and increasing threat posed to plant diversity, which must be saved, maintained and enhanced if we are to have an authentic ALTERNATIVE GREEN REVOLUTION, based on diversity, sustainable agriculture and local self-empowerment.

8. We generally oppose the patenting of life forms, including gene-splicing techniques, and call for a moratorium on agricultural genetic engineering while an evaluation of its effects on ecological and social sustainability is carried out. The implications of a corporate takeover, and resulting monopolization of genetic “intellectual property” by the bioengineering industry, are immense. With the introduction of the world’s first genetically engineered (and duly patented) tomato, we need to re-examine our government’s oversight of this untested, unproven field.

9. We advocate REGIONALIZING our food system and decentralizing agricultural lands, production, and distribution.

10. We support research, within the public and private arenas, including educational institutions, for sustainable, organic, and ecologically balanced agriculture.

11. The Green Party supports the strongest “organic” standards. California has had the highest standards of any state for organic foods labeling. These standards were authored by those in the industry, growers, manufacturers and those in the business of livestock raising and feed production. Proposed USDA standards should be based on the highest standards.

Currently, organic food is priced such that it is beyond the means of low-income consumers. Rather than allow for a system whereby only the wealthier in society get to eat safer and healthier foods, there must be remedies in place to protect all consumers. First, the use of sewage sludge or hazardous wastes as fertilizer, the use of food irradiation and the use of genetic engineering must be banned in ALL food production. Other aspects addressed in organic standards, such as the use of intensive animal confinement and the use of persistent, toxic pesticides must be phased out as well for all food production. Until these take place, there should be an end to government price supports, which aid in non-organic food production and government subsidies should be shifted such that the cost of organic food products is increasingly competitive with pesticide/non-organic crops.

Actually I can see that there really is a real world with real people in it all around me. We aren't spectacular, we aren't Dancing With the Stars nor doing faux survival games. Many of us care deeply about those issues presented by the Green Party, the industrial agriculture ones, and others that relate, fleshed out in the other headings. Exactly how we can become a national presence with genuine representatives who have even the foggiest notion of how to bring these issues into the K-Street corporate mishmash that is now Congress, and under the present corporate mass media circumstances I simply don't know. My own solution is to begin to do something entirely different, or as entirely as is possible.

I like what Rocky Anderson says, I understand his bio, though he's what we used to call the middle class, the respectable small business owner middle class, including the family farmers. Generally community leadership types, with all the right social connections. Their kids didn't mess around much with the working class kids, who became a kind of middle class for a couple of generations thanks to decent wages and working conditions. There's a lot of embedded national mythology in those social networks, lots of national pride that can't be questioned without raising hackles. A deep and bitter distaste for unions that have a kind of aura of socialism and anarchism that questions some deeply rooted belief systems.

Whether that's also true of Rocky, I can't say, but he seems like that traditional main street small town middle class who were the decent republicans that no longer have a party either. And that group, which I think still exists, can possibly be shaped enough to fit into this modern progressiveness. I would equate David Korten, former consultant to the World Bank, originally from a small business owning family in Longview Washington, with that middle class, and he's certainly gone progressive. So once awakened, these folks can get into a leadership role again. But I also have to acknowledge, people can be very, very weird when it comes to political labels and traditions.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

I hear what you're saying ren about the similarities between the Justice Party and the Green Party. Perhaps they should combine their efforts. I think the Justice Party slogan can be. Justice not Just Us.

In other words, Justice for All not Just Us rich people.

I noticed that since the demorats have been in power more or less they haven't pushed for instant runoff voting. A system that will allow a third party candidate to have wide support without fear of handing the election to the worst of two corporate front men.

I still need to explore how such progressive as Rocky could get elected Mayor in Salt Lake City. This sounds interesting. I wish I wasn't so busy now with my work or I'd be working for Rocky a lot more.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Not to undermine the seriousness of your post but at this point I would take Rocky for President and Bullwinkle for VP.

Ok, that was funny, now get serious and help promote this guy . . . Please. We need to break the corporate front men as president stranglehold we've been in for so long.

Choco's picture
Choco
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Get. Money. Out.

Last week, the United States Senate actually considered a constitutional amendment on campaign finance. Last Monday, the Senate advanced Tom Udall's proposed amendment, which would allow Congress to regulate money in politics. Seventy-nine senators voted to allow debate on the measure.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system