{news} Actual transcript of Nader interview with Thom Hartmann

Thu Jan 3 12:29:24 EST 2008

Cliff:

The URL you sent does not work for me.  So here is the transcript in case
anyone is having the same problem:

Sincerely,

Mike DeRosa

Listen Live <http://www.airamerica.com/thomhartmannpage/>  |
<http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_rss&feed=RSS2.0&no_html=1>
RSS 2.0

Poorvote 1 starvote 2 starvote 3 starvote 4 starvote 5 starBest 

Thom and Ralph Nader discuss the presidential candidates and issues, and
possible Michael Bloomberg and Ralph Nader candidacies, the day before the
Iowa primaries 

Thom Hartmann interviews Ralph Nader, 02 January 2008

[Thom]: We're going to be talking a little later on in the program with both
Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich, and Kucinich today, actually this is a
conversation that I had with him on Monday, which was before the
announcement. Today he has come out and said that his caucus-goers in Iowa,
should they not get the 15 percent threshold necessary to stand in place,
should go caucus with Mr. Obama. And I would love to get the thoughts of
Ralph Nader on that. Ralph Nader the guy that I voted for for president in
2000 but not in 2004. We've had this conversation before.
<http://www.nader.org/> Ralph Nader, nader.org his web site. He's also in
addition to being a consumer advocate, a lawyer, and an icon of all that's
good in America, in my opinion. He's also the author of a brilliant book, "
<http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061238277/The_Seventeen_Traditions/i
ndex.aspx> The Seventeen Traditions". Ralph Nader, welcome to the program.

[Nader]: Thank you. Happy New Year to you and your listeners.

[Thom]: Thank you sir. You are not endorsing John Edwards, but throwing your
support to him. Is there a, at least according to the
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7647.html> Politico. You want to
tell us about that?

[Nader]: Yeah, I mean, for years I tried to make the distinction with people
that there's such a thing as commenting favorably on a position or a
statement by a political candidate, without endorsing all hundred or hundred
and fifty of that person's positions. But the press is very quick to take
praise of you know, the, Edwards' very important statement which I think is
probably the most insightful of his whole campaign, which I is, "do you
really believe if we replace a bunch of corporate Republicans with a bunch
of corporate Democrats, that anything meaningful is going to change?" And I
praised that.

And I think that goes to the central issue of political campaigning, which
is about the proper distribution of power in America: who has too much if
it: the few; who has too little: the many; and who makes the decisions: the
few over the many. That's why I was a little disappointed to hear that
Dennis Kucinich is urging his followers in Iowa to support Obama, who
basically's been tiptoeing around the area of corporate domination of our
political economy: elections, government, etcetera, the corporate crime
wave, the taxpayer subsidies of corporate welfare, the distortion of the
public budgets into military expenditures - now over half of the whole
Federal government's operating budget and there's no more Soviet Union. I
was really surprised, because Dennis's views on the need to control
corporate power and to subordinate corporate power to popular sovereignty,
the sovereignty of the people as our founders referred to it, is much closer
to John Edwards than to Barack Obama.

[Thom]: Yeah, I've been scratching my head ever since this came out. I first
met Dennis Kucinich I think about ten years ago when a mutual friend of
ours, Marianne Williamson, was putting together the Renaissance Alliance. I
was on the board for several years and we had a meeting in Washington DC to
talk about a Department of Peace. And I spoke at it about Corporate Power.
I'd just had a book come out called "
<http://www.thomhartmann.com/unequalprotection.shtml> Unequal Protection"
about the rise of corporate dominance in America. And, you know, I've always
thought that Dennis Kucinich was a real progressive icon and I'm baffled. Do
you have any insights?

[Nader]: No, not at all.

[Thom]: Yeah, OK. Your support and non-endorsement of John Edwards. What
does this mean for the possibility of a Ralph Nader candidacy?

[Nader]: Well, as I've said, I'll have to decide in a few weeks about
whether I'm going to try to mobilize more grass roots support and extend
the, any campaign into '09. I think campaigns for third parties should
transcend the November election day and try and build on people's lobby to
cycle back on Washington, especially on Congress.

But I must say that the
<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742
/index.htm> Fortune magazine piece last June on Hillary Clinton where in
effect they answered the question, "why does big business love Hillary
Clinton?" gives many of us in the progressive area serious pause about what
the future of the Democratic Party's going to be if she happens to win the
Democratic nomination in the election, because she really has made her peace
with big business and basically accepted the corporate status quo and
corporate occupied territory in Washington. She does a few rhetorical
flourishes once in a while against the drug and insurance companies, but if
you look at her record on the Senate Armed Services Committee, she's never
met a giant weapons system she doesn't like, no matter how much these
systems have been condemned as being strategically obsolete after the fall
of the Soviet Union or unnecessary like the F-22, which is going to cost
over $200 billion.

[Thom]:  <http://www.mikebloomberg.com/> Michael Bloomberg. I'm curious
whether you launch a third party candidacy or not, Michael Bloomberg, and
presumably Chuck <http://thomhartmann.org/Web/http/hagel.senate.gov/>
Hagel, seem to be positioning themselves for this. What are your thoughts on
that?

[Nader]: I think that because the Republican camp is weak, apart from
possibly McCain, who's long odds to win the nomination, I think it's very
likely that Bloomberg's going to get in. What's his down side? He can turn
it into a three way race. He doesn't have to make one call for money. He can
get on the ballots in all the states. He's a well known figure and he'll be
even more well known. A mayor of the largest city in America. Founder of a
huge media empire from scratch in 1980. He's worth about $20 billion. He
spends one to two billion and he'll outspend everybody. And why wouldn't he
want to get in? Senator Hagel's just aching to be his vice president. And I
think he can say to himself from the get-go he'll be number two in the polls
unless someone like McCain gets the Republican nomination.

[Thom]: Well, one of my best friends is a New Yorker and a Democrat, has
been his whole life, and he likes Bloomberg. I know a number of Democrats in
New York who think that Bloomberg has been a good mayor and kind of, you
know, I mean, he used to be a Democrat, then he was a Republican, now he's
an independent. To what extent would a Bloomberg candidacy hurt the
Democratic candidate as opposed to the Republican candidate?

[Nader]: Right now it is too early to tell. It is clear however that he'll
take from the Republican votes, he'll take from the Democrats' votes and
he'll take a lot of independent votes. That's why I think he could position
himself very well if he moves in. It'll also be a much more exciting race.
He'll raise big issues about the Electoral College, about third parties,
about more voices and choices for the people, about paying attention to our
cities which are being relatively ignored by the present candidates in Iowa
and New Hampshire, largely rural states.

Now I think, I don't agree with Bloomberg's policies in many areas. He is a
champion of corporate welfare. He's given huge tax breaks to these giant
brokerage firms in New York City who threatened to go across the river and
position themselves in New Jersey. So he gives these big tax breaks to
Merrill Lynch and others. And he's not very sensitive on civil liberties,
you know. When you have a big political demonstration, it's peaceful in New
York City, mayor Bloomberg is not really that tough on police exuberance or
misbehavior, and that worries a lot of civil libertarians.

[Thom]: Well, I mean, one of the things that you pointed out, particularly
in your support for John Edwards, is that the biggest issue of our day right
now is corporate dominance of not just the political sphere, but basically
everything. You know, corporations asserting that they can even own us; they
can own our DNA, they can own our personal information, and how could we
trust somebody who basically is a billionaire by virtue of the corporate
form to be a champion of anti-corporate reform?

[Nader]: It's all very, very relative, Thom. In other words, people will
look at Bloomberg and say, 'well, he's not owned by anyone because he owns
so much', you know?

[Thom]: Right.

[Nader]: How do you buy a guy who's worth $20 billion?

[Thom]: That's what they said about Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt,
too.

[Nader]: Yeah, that and Perot, too. Ross Perot.

[Thom]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Nader]: So, that'll be, the second is I don't think he'll be awed by big
business. That doesn't mean he won't go with them. It does mean that he
might want to really crack down on corporate crime, fraud and abuse with a
good Attorney General, because he is a big business guy. He's not awed by
them. There are a lot of liberals who are really awed by big business. You
know, they think, 'wow, look at these guys, they've made a big payroll, you
know, and they go around with all kinds of entourages and yachts and private
jets'. Well, you won't see that with Bloomberg. On the other hand, you know,
he is part of the dominant corporate system. So, we shouldn't be overwhelmed
by these things, except that, you know, it will be a more exciting race:
more voices, more choices, more unpredictability. You'll get more votes out.
You'll emphasize more the independent. So, you know, it's better than just a
two-party elected dictatorship trying to run itself for another 4 years.

[Thom]: Well, we definitely live in interesting times. Ralph Nader,
nader.org the web site. Check out his book, "The Seventeen Traditions" too.
Ralph Nader, thanks for being with us.

[Nader]: Thanks very much. Thom.

[Thom]: Good talking with you.

Comments (2)add comment

<http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_jomcomment&task=rss&conten
tid=475&opt=com_content> feedSubscribe to this comment's feed

Roxie said: 

Ralph has endured much abuse recently, but how many people 
have saved as many lives & advanced as many progressive causes, 
and dedicated their whole LIVES to being a good CITIZEN!! 

I thank you for having Ralph on, and hope to hear more of him.... 
He understands the corporate (negative) influence on our democracy like few
others do... I think Ralph is great and we owe him a big debt of gratitude..
Lucky us, that despite it all, he is still trying to make a difference!!
Wow.

January 02, 2008

Kevin Kakareka said: 

I would just like to thank Mr. Nader for his selfless interest in the
betterment of this country and would hope that he stays engaged in the
political discourse. After the trashing of this country by the present
criminal administration I would hope that Mr Nader has an intense interest
in investigating and exposing this administration for what it is. Thank You
Mr. Nader

January 02, 2008

  _____  

From: ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org
[mailto:ctgp-news-bounces at ml.greens.org] On Behalf Of Clifford Thornton
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:05 AM
To: ctgp-news; connlist
Subject: {news} [GPBC] Re: Nader throws support to Edwards--Maybe

You can hear exactly what Ralph's position is by listening to what he said
today.  Click on the link below and then scroll down to Wednesday, January 2
and you can hear the podcast which begins immediately with the bullshit from
politico.

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/Hartmann.html
<http://www.whiterosesociety.%20org/Hartmann.%20html> 

Efficacy
PO Box 1234
860 657 8438
Hartford, CT 06143
efficacy at msn.com
www.Efficacy-online.org

"THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON"

Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit
501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax
deductible

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20080103/9df53e75/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 219 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20080103/9df53e75/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 585 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20080103/9df53e75/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1025 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20080103/9df53e75/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20080103/9df53e75/attachment-0003.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1767 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20080103/9df53e75/attachment-0004.gif>