Stateside With Rosalea
How To Have A No War Voice Heard In This Election
There is one simple thing that all the millions of people in the United States who oppose the war in Iraq can do to
express their sentiments this election: they can work to get Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo on the ballot in their state.
I'm not saying they should vote for them; but supporting the right of an antiwar voice to be heard in this 2004
presidential race can just as effectively be achieved by helping these two clear the massive hurdles they face as
independent candidates. In some states it's too late, but the bulk of the signature petition filing needs to be done in
the next three weeks.
Now, if you're a progressive Democrat who was perhaps hanging on to Dennis Kucinich as the last antiwar voice standing
at the upcoming convention, you're going to have to work especially hard to win the Nader-Camejo campaign's trust when
you volunteer to get signatures. In Oregon, where having 1,000 people in a hall listening to a speaker and collecting
their signatures is enough to get you on the ballot, the Democratic Party apparently sent its supporters "under cover"
to fill the hall and exclude those who would have signed.
How a party can even call itself the "democratic" party and indulge in behavior like that is beyond understanding, and
the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to be in some deep doo-doo if it is supporting such actions. And if they are
supporting such actions, what is it they have got to fear? It's not like this is the year 2000, where the economy was
booming and terrorism was something that happened off-shore.
This is a wartime election with a wartime president running for re-election during a time of national insecurity and
economic uncertainty, and on historical precedent alone it's obvious he is going to win OR lose big time. Not by a few
votes, but by a double-digit percentage. Everybody of whatever political stripe who opposes US intervention in Iraq
stands only to benefit by enabling the Nader-Camejo voice to be heard, and if they feel the risk is too great to vote
for them in November, then don't.
It's not like I'm asking you to collect signatures for the Pharmaceutical and Hospital Insurance Lobby Party candidates,
or the Energy and Defense Contractors Lobby Party candidates, now is it?
The reason those lobby groups don't have candidates is because they don't need them. They get the legislation passed
that they care about by working behind the scenes, away from where you and I can scrutinize their actions. Can you
honestly say that YOU don't need candidates who are upfront about where they stand on the issues that matter to you?
Are you really just going to roll over and say, "Wow! It felt so energizing and powerful to go on those marches and
voice that discontent, but, gee. This game is for the big players, not for me."
"This game," my friends, is democracy. If you believe in it, then show the world you do by helping get this antiwar
ticket on the presidential ballot. After all, what kind of country would you expect to be living in where only two
brands of cereal were allowed on the supermarket shelf because the makers of those two brands refused to let anyone else
compete?
I don't think "democracy" is the word that would describe such a place. Do you?
ENDS