Is there any good reason to nominate a presidential candidate who ISN'T "anticorporate"?

We can assume that any candidate that seeks and gets big corporate support (such as big checks from the insurance industry and glowing cover stories in business magazines) is not going to put the people first.

We can assume that that candidate will obediently accept the constraints corporate power imposes on our political spectrum and on their range of actions(I.E., that, as in the last two "Democratic" administrations, no progressive policies whatsoever will be enacted).

We can assume that such a candidate will NEVER cut war spending(thus further ensuring that nothing progressive can happen, because progressive policies always require at least SOME significant spending increases) and will keep us at war in the Middle East forever.

And we can assume that corporate power will make sure that any "pro-corporate" Democrat will end up with a Republican Congress and be forced to move even further away from our party's principles.

Thus, nominating a "pro-corporate" Democrat means accepting that the next Democratic Administration will end in certain one-term failure.

Anybody got a reason why we should subject ourselves to anything like that?

Anybody got a reason why we shouldn't nominate an "anticorporate" candidate instead, so we can elect a president who can actually succeed in doing something that isn't Republican and futile?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

If Wal-Mart cannot donate to a presidential candidate, then the managers and executives who work at Wal-Mart can donate in their own names with the proviso that the receiver is made aware that all those contributions are coming from the management at Wal-Mart. That sends the message to the receiver who is pulling the strings here.

For instance, get 500 managers to donate the maximum 2300/individual to the pro-corporate guy, and you've just raised $1,150,000. As far as Wal-Mart or any Fortune 500 company is concerned, there's several thousand more managers who may wish to donate. Try getting 500 blue-collar workers who are likely cash-strapped to donate the maximum individual amount. It's impossible.

You'd need to rally together thousands of workers just to match the buying power of a few hundred managers and executives. That's the problem.

Also, if you want to spend even more money than that attacking the pro-labor candidate, set up a 527 front-group. You can spend an infinite amount of money attacking the candidate you want to lose. The Swift Boat Veterans are but one example. There are many other corporate-sponsored front-groups out there.

not the corporation.

It's an argument in favor of public financing of campaigns, or something better than what we currently have.

Enough already with the hairsplitting. If you get money from CEO's you can't be progressive. End of discussion.

We have already experienced the corruption, malfeasance and traitorous acts of the PRO-corporate political crowd; why would most Americans want MORE of that SOS?!?!?

That LLC part stands for limited liability CORPORATION.

The point is that there are all kinds of different corporations, some doing good some doing bad. You set up Google against Blackwater, I think you can see the difference. The issue isn't in what legal form they take, its in what they do. A democratic candidate getting backing from the right corporations doesn't bother me one bit.

From Wikipedia:

"A limited liability company (denoted by L.L.C. or LLC) in the law of many of the United States is a legal form of business company offering limited liability to its owners. It is similar to a corporation, and is often a more flexible form of ownership, especially suitable for smaller companies with a limited number of owners. Unlike a regular corporation, a limited liability company with one member may be treated as a disregarded entity, so the member is often singled-out as a person performing the actions of the LLC. A limited liability company with multiple members may choose, generally at the time that the new entity applies for a US federal taxpayer ID number, to be treated for U.S. federal taxation purposes as a partnership, as a C corporation, or as an S corporation."

Can be a corporation, but does not have to be.

n/t.

if DU is not a corporation...

No solar panel builders will have luxury boxes in Denver.

Not what the company is doing. I mean in the US, I believe most non-profits are incorporated. It's just a legal distinction, dealing largely with taxes and limiting liability. I could start a coporation right new if I got several people together willing to do the paperwork.

careful not to instinctively demonize "corporations" as "the enemy" in the way that Republicans demonize "the federal government" as "the enemy".

Our position should be that business is one part of this country, but not inherently more important than all the other parts.

:rofl:

And your silly icon clearly shows you have no case against anything I've said.

Why you'd settle for a "pro-Business Democrat" when that means "a Democrat that's just like a Republican" as it did the last two times, is utterly beyond me.

We don't have to embrace political masochism like that anymore. We can win as our true progressive selves this year.

and you've never defined 'corporatist' or 'pro-Business Democrat' so there really isn't much to argue against.

Democrats that seek and obtain corporate support don't back social spending. They don't want the labor movement revived and strengthened. They back globalist trade policy. They back big defense budgets. The Nineties bear me out on this.

Being "pro-business" means accepting the limits the DLC and the nation's CEO's want imposed on Democratic policy. It means, in short, agreeing in advance to fail.

Also, I still don't know exactly what you mean by the terms 'pro-business' 'anti-corporate' or any of the other negative terms you've been throwing around (seemingly) interchangeably.

Are you saying all business are bad and should be abolished or only those who have formed corporations?

Should even single-person corporations be abolished?

How will we support the millions of people thrown out of work?

If you say that some corporations should be allowed, how do you decide which ones?

On a slightly different note, shall we not do anything to support american businesses considering the fact that most employed people benefit from having their company do well? If yes, what things do you deem acceptable. If no, then are you really saying that companies should receive absolutely nothing from the government?

I could go on, but these are a few of the problems I have with your post.

(were any ever to be formed OTHER than Ben and Jerry's)would be fine.

But "pro-business Democrat" doesn't just mean accepting the existence of business. It means, as the Nineties showed, believing that what the rich want should matter more than what everyone else wants.

"pro-business" means "pro-submission to corporate dominance", as well as "pro-abandonment of national dignity". And it means
accepting the limits on political choice and governmental action that corporations insist on.

As the Nineties showed, if you accept those limits, you give up being a Democrat. There can NEVER be a good reason for another Democratic president to be as conservative as the last one was. To do so is to agree to be a pathetic irrelevant joke, as the last one was.

:shrug:

But we can.

And when we see a little flicker of support for the every day people who are so over-matched and hurting and struggling - and we most certainly do see this with Kucinich and Edwards - and when we see people responding to that message, and when little brushfires are starting here and there, we can fan those flames as though our lives depended upon it.

Our lives do depend upon it.

When people say "what do you mean exactly when you say corporations dominate our lives?" I imagine fish saying "what do you mean water is getting us wet?"

and their ice cream is laden with high fructose corn syrup.

The war isn't part of a "Corporatist" agenda, it's a drain on the economy. We're borrowing billions of dollars from China and pissing it away in the other side of the world. The only beneficiaries are a handful of defense contractors.

If we're looking for an anti-Corporatist hero, why not Ken Lay? The guy managed to dismantle what was one of the most powerful corporations in the country. Thousands may have lost their jobs and pensions, but big bad Enron isn't around anymore to control their puppets in DC.

The last thing we need is empty one-dimensional pseudo-populist rhetoric. Speaking "truth to power", revoking some corporate charters, then hoping things sort themselves out is not an adequate substitute for sound public policy.

only "good" corporation in history? Yikes. I think you just demonstrated how little you know.

There isn't a single other corporation doing anything progressive anymore.

Leave corporations to the Republicans. They can't have a soul.

Why would you even BOTHER defending corporations after the Eighties and the Nineties?

That settles it...you ARE on the Right.

"Business" does not equal "corporation."

A "corporation" is a license - a special privilege granted by the people's government that allow people to set up fictitious entities that enjoy the rights of a human being without the risks or liabilities. It is by definition anti-social and irresponsible. It enshrines profits over people, it places capital (the few) in the superior and dominant position at the expense of labor (the many.)

It was not so much the British government the colonists sought to overthrow, but rather the crown corporations that had de facto rule over the colonies.

Unbridled and unregulated corporations are a danger - perhaps the greatest threat to democracy and self-government of all. Opposing corporations has nothing to do with being anti-business.

Corporations are also a threat to business. They monopolize and control markets, suppress competition, discourage initiative and entrepreneurship, horde capital, prevent innovations, and restrict productivity by controlling labor.

Corporations are a threat to communities. They are a mechanism for extracting capital out of local economies. They are destroying sustainable cooperative rural agricultural communities here and around the world.

Corporations are a threat to culture. The amassing and leveraging of capital allows them to homogenize and sterilize the arts and eliminate cultural traditions for the sake of maximizing return on financial investment for those who have no stake in the things that sustain life and meaning for the human beings caught in the path of the corporate juggernaut.

In short, corporations are a threat to the very survival of the human race, and it is no accident that the environment that sustains us is being destroyed in the cause of maximizing corporate profits.

Some may object to this comparison, but I hope they will at least consider it and not read things into it that I am not saying.

I think the Democratic party is facing a challenge similar to the one that the Whig party faced in the 1850's. I also think that the growing domination of our lives and our government by corporations is the greatest threat to our rights, to our freedom, to our future and to our well-being that we have faced since slavery.

Some were asking then: "Is there any good reason to nominate a presidential candidate who ISN'T anti-slavery?"

The reasons that people had then:

- They thought it would alienate people because it was too radical.

- They saw slavery as just one of many issues, not of any particular urgency or importance.

- They thought that gradual change was the right way to go.

- They thought that they couldn't win if they weren't realistic.

- They thought that the people who were strongly anti-slavery were purists and fanatics who were exaggerating the problem and making trouble.

- They thought that not all slave owners were bad people, and so didn't want to attack them.

- They couldn't imagine an alternative to slavery - opposing it seemed to be inviting chaos.

- They thought that if they compromised with the slave power, they could get other things they wanted enacted in exchange.

- They were connected to private interests, such as banking and shipping, that profited from slavery.

- They believed that slavery was part of some natural order, and unavoidable.

- They were secretly pro-slavery.

We aren't talking about abolishing capitalism, just taking business out of its self-assumption of omnipotence.

We are supposed to be the party that fights for those that corporate power leaves out in the cold in some way or another. If you include those who don't have health insurance because they can't afford it, that includes the MAJORITY of the people.

Nobody who's gonna be sitting in the luxury boxes in Denver cares about that majority. This means the people they back won't care either. This is why we need a luxury-box free party.

That, perhaps is why they are so popular; one can read them to mean virtually anything one wishes.

It means letting corporations effectively have a veto over government policy.

One could reasonably say that any candidate puts "the rich" before "the people," short of one proposing outright Communism. All one needs do is adjust one's definition of "rich," "people," and "put ahead." Similarly, one could adjust the definitions the other way, and claim that every candidate puts "the people" first.

"It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

"Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Abraham Lincoln
First Annual Message
December 3rd, 1861

It is not in the least vague to me.

Corporate lawyers and lobbyists write the legislation our representatives enact.

Corporations have vastly more power, but equal standing in court, and no one has personal liability on Goliath's side, while David is defenseless.

Corporarions dominate every aspect of our lives and control our government.

How is this vague? How could some imagined danger that could result from challenging this power be sufficient cause for failing to fight against it?

I certainly don't think that anti-corporation opinions have been popular - quite the opposite. Pro-corporate propaganda dominates the mass media and has for decades.

To start fulfilling their responsibility to society and the economy as benevolent citizens, not "Infallible Lords and Masters over you untermensch", as they're treated now.

What we have isn't pure capitalism. It's unbridled corporatism. The rich over the past 15 years have seen unprecedented spikes in their personal incomes and wealth, while real wages for the middle and working classes, factoring inflation, have been pretty much flat since the early 70s.

Candidates need corporate money under the current non-stop campaign scenario. Virtually every '08 candidate has been running in one form or fashion since the last vote in the '04 election was stolen. With it is a full-time campaign operation from pollsters to TV producers and more. It's a big money operation. And that doesn't take into account the expenses for television time and operating campaigns in four or six states simultaneously (including all the travel). The campaign season has gotten too long and has created a cottage industry that feeds on these non-stop elections. And with it comes the corporate money that is needed to fund these campaigns and both private donations and matching funds won't cut it.

For many elections the Democrats were outspent by Repugnicans and that was as much responsible for their dominance than any policy or politician. That money bought lots of exposure and influence. Democrats played within the rules and kept losing. The national party spent strictly on the top tier candidates and the entire party suffered. That situation has been changed for the better by Dr. Dean, but there's a lot more to go.

While I'd love an ideologically pure liberal/progressive who can give the finger to corporations, we're not living in that world right now. It's gonna cost $300 million for whichever candidate wins the general election...that money just doesn't show up, a lion share comes from the deepest pockets and those are the corporates. Reform the campaign system and then we can look at reducing both the money and the corporate influence in this process.

We can't let ourselves get burned like that again.

n/t.

n/t.

I like edwards but he's not actually anti-corporate.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Just like Denny Boy.

Undisclosed Friends of the Oligarchy?

I see quite a few of those. Saw one last week out by the barn. It was spinning and making a lot of threatening noise but didn't seem to go anywhere.

Maybe that is what Dennis saw.

that I don't waste my time with this place any more.

Some things just don't change. It just takes a couple of drivel-mongers like you to piss the place up...


I guess Dennis is your new Nader, eh?


Get a life!

As have many US astronaughts... as have many pilots...

Just because you saw something you couldn't identify doesn't mean you are a

By telling the truth, knowing he'd be raked over the coals?

...someone in this thread likes to repeat "Unidentified Flying Object" over and over again like a moron, so it's useless to argue with anyone, unless that person is willing to apologize. If you can get him to do that, I might come back, but I will not have my efforts mocked like a ten-year-old would mock someone, by repeating something over and over like "I can't hear you I can't hear you".

If you haven't the cajones to ignore what you feel is childish behavior, I have no interest in your comments anyway... even though I've agreed with many in the past.

Which is why I won't be nominating one, or voting for one in the general, either.

The corporate takeover has occurred in earnest. We need a fighter instead.

Who don't understand shit about the mess we're in?
BHN:mad: