It appears almost entirely obvious that the Obama Administration is going to urge Democrats in the House of Representatives to extend only the middle class portions of the Bush Tax Cuts, allowing those for higher earning Americans to die away in January 2011. While the National Alliance Foundation respects the desire for each president to impose their ideological beliefs on the nation, this does not justify the insensitive and reckless decision to change the tax code in th heart of a national recession.
Whether one agrees that the current system is fair or grossly not so, it is irresponsible to radically shift the structure on which our market economy is presently based. On the first tier, the move is hypocritical seeing how the president has campaigned against the tax cuts "only for the richest 2% of America." In fact, the Bush system did cut taxes on the poor and middle class, albeit not as voluminously owing to the lesser incomes of these individuals. Since then, the economy has grown considerably, only halted by poor regulations for financial institutions and of the course the two Middle eastern wars.
Perhaps more crucial however is the support which those cuts give to our economic state as a nation. Hold anti-corporate views or not, but our present globalist structure of trade is fused with powerful companies, not simply government institutions or the middle class. Cutting that line of support to the companies which supply most American jobs will not move the economy away from its recession, but simply bring it to a damage laden standstill. If one considers the tax cuts which will expire, for individuals who have income of more than $250,000 per year, they clearly do not account for most small business owners. Even a small cafe, independently owned, will bring in close to $300,000 each year, losing out on the tax benefits.
At its core, our economy is remaining structured because of the very tax cuts made in the early 2000s. Severing them as a means of growth will not help stem a movement towards exiting our receding markets; instead exacerbating the issue.
Ideology may drive politicians as they campaign for power, but responsibility must come before all else once they have ascended to it. Modifying the tax cuts is a decision which will invariably affect the lives of countless American college graduates and business owners tremendously, so it must be done in a calculated and wise manner. Maintaining the present cuts is the only way to accomplish this, and the most effective manner in which to protect our nation's economy.
John Lai
National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General
Not an election cycle goes by without voters hearing the vehement rantings concerning changes to America's debt-laden system of retirement security from both challengers and incumbents in the democratic process. There are cries of instability, injustice, and the unfairness to seniors which both the plan's current state and its recommended improvements seem inevitably bundled with. Despite the flashy and divisive media points which these meandering arguments can stir up, they almost universally miss the centrist and pro-American mission of reforming and revamping the fundamentals of the Social Security System.
Contrary to the popular talking point of the center-leftists, stabilizing the retirement system is actually an incredibly secure and generally risk free process that can be accomplished through a one time dedication to cooperation within both houses of Congress.
In order to effectively reform Social Security, the National Alliance Party proposes a three factor process. First, Congress must act to create an umbrella organization for all current Social Security participants over the age of 50. This net will transfer all the retiree funds to a secondary agency for a 40-year mandate of continued service after these Americans choose to cease working. As the years pass and these citizens retire, they will not be affected by an immediate burden of funding their own retirement if their careers were not adequately successful enough. By insisting on securing the future of seniors in our country, the government can avoid unnecessary political bloodshed from the older crowd in forthcoming elections.
Next on the government's plate would be legislation to establish a safety net for the lower half of the impoverished American population. Using basic logic, the poorer and likely the less educated people of this nation should not be trusted with their own retirement funds, as a simple investment mistake could devastate them. In this manner, even the most vulnerable financially would be able to avoid the potential trap of poor decisions with what they have been entrusted with in life.
It might seem so far as if this system would not change the sagging weights of the current retirement agency, but its crowning piece is yet to come. Under this more ideal proposal, the government would transfer retirement accounts for the middle class to solidly based 401k investment securities. Instead of handing money to the potentially reckless, Congress could secure people's funds within nearly impenetrable savings accounts while removing the insane burden which is Social Security from the shoulders of future American taxpayers.
Realistically, America has few other choices when dealing with this issue. As a nation with innumerable foreign and national security interests, we can hardly afford to cut the defense budget out of convenience to bring in more supportive revenue. A mass tax levy might work, but Americans would hardly stand for it at the polling booths, and we do not have enough graduates starting their own companies which may be targeted for more public funds.
In the 21st Century, it is the duty of every elected official and the people whom they represent to make sacrifices for the good of the future. Social Security might have sounded fine in promotion, but in practice it has become a terrible burden which threatens to cripple out economy in the relatively near future. But despite its menace, a series of tough and unrelenting steps can dramatically turn the tide for the good of the people. This is not about politics; it must be about responsibility.
Ayla Samadi
National Alliance Vice President for Domestic Affairs
Victories are never built on shoddy beliefs; the illusion of one simply precedes a coming fall. Truthfully, there are few other ways in which to discuss the results of Sweden's dynamic national election only a day in the past, in which Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt lost much of his seemingly enduring "grand coalition" to the right-wing Swedish Democrats Party. Not only should this election be looked at as a referendum on the decay of the European Union to centralized government and radicalized religion, but it also represents a profound dispersion of the once consolidated influence of the probuconservatives, a group of economic liberals and otherwise moderate politicians who have risen to prominence in recent European political history.
Reinfeldt's personal career is a prime example of the growing shift towards liberal conservatism in the Old World nations. After spending some time as an ardent supporter of Swedish Prime Minister Carld Bildt in the 1990s, the young and ambitious activist began challenging his superior's views as too extreme and incompatible, campaigning against the man whom he had helped to enthrone and assisting in the dramatic victory for the leftist Social Democrats in the 1994 general election campaign.
With Bildt and the conservatives humiliated, Reinfeldt amassed his party of support, working to construct a moderate platform under which to unite for his election to the opposition in 2002, and the premiership in 2006. Since his victory, the prime minister has gained ample praise for his fragilely strung together Alliance for Sweden, which was meant to coast to an easy victory in the 2010 election. With his success, Reinfeldt even managed to shift David Cameron from a strong conservative to a flamboyant liberal in time for an expected landslide victory for the United Kingdom Conservative Party in the May 2010 decision moment.
And yet, something has held both Cameron, who now governs with the Liberal Democrats, and Reinfeldt, who enjoys centrist and left-wing support in his coalition, back. The short of it is simply morality. Both men have arguably captured impressive victories politically, but their seemingly unfaltering strides in that arena still cannot endear them enough within their separate electorates to form a lasting dominance over the nation.
Notwithstanding their efforts, probuconservatives feel that by simply cutting taxes or agencies domestically, they can command the everlasting partnership of the voters. Though economic policy is important, it is a useless goal if the party does not provide contrast to the failings of the countless left-wing governments around the globe. Conservatives may not inhabit government as frequently, yet they are called in to reform and rebuild the positive ways of the nation's elder days through good intended social proposals and economic openness to help businesses grow.
If the probuconservatives feel their moderate path is still righteous after their ideology's defeat in the Netherlands, Britain, and now Sweden, then they are missing the reality which faces them unabashedly. Voters want strong conservative leadership in times of crisis; they will throw out those who are simply seeking to achieve goals politically. And although moderate leaders may win races, their reliance on centrist rehtoric can only lead to eventual defeat, as they hand the reins to a more strident partisan months before the next election. These politicians desire self-fulfillment at the expense of the people they claim to represent. In their quests to forge dynasties, they have left the interests of the people behind, choosing to serve only themselves.
In the past few days, former United States President James Carter has come out and criticized his now deceased Democratic colleague, Ted Kennedy, for stalling health reform due to political purposes. According to Carter, Kennedy used his influence as Majority Whip to kill the potential bill proposed and supported by the president so that he might campaign directly against the administration's record when running for the Democratic nomination in 1980. Regardless of the National Alliance Foundation's stark disagreements with the former senator from Massachusetts, it is incredibly low for a man, and someone once the leader of this nation, to use a distraction from his own legacy in order to gain pity support. Unfortunately, Carter shows a constant record of finger pointing rather than the acceptance of responsibility that has been all too lurid and present in recent years on an international plane.
To be more up to date, President Barack Obama as taken Jimmy Carter's cue, rounding up what is now a collection of speeches for the purpose of bashing and dehumanizing the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Instead of leaving the past behind himself as he pledged to do in the 2008 campaign, the president is instead preoccupied with blaming all of his misfortunes on the preceding administration, not accepting responsibility for the present one.
This attitude of shifting the blame is the exact reason why people no longer admire politicians as they might have even as little as 50 years ago. No one is eager to lead; only to distract from their performances in office. Years ago, when Calvin Coolidge ascended to the executive office, he made it clear that he was not in office to simply play politics. The Coolidge Administration worked diligently to ferment and solidify eras of economic growth, avoiding the constant bickering of the legislative branch over useless concerns in policy. Thus Coolidge, who is by no measure a very popular president, left a legacy of concern for the well being of the people, not of his own future. He retired plainly and humbly, refusing to reinvent his image around the world like other leaders.
At its core, Jimmy Carter's ire is simply part of his own neglect. During his tenure, he failed to reach out and accomplish his own policies for a stronger America, instead wrestling for political survival in the city of Washington. After his embarrassing defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan in 1980, he was left helpless, struggling to stay afloat above a precipice of obscure unpopularity in the American political archives. His most recent exploits are not attempts to strengthen the nation and the world, but to whitewash his mistakes as simply the results of obstructionism. And although it is relatively simple to debate the merits of even Kennedy's legacy, the senator at least worked continuously, which cannot be said of Jimmy Carter.
It is really unimportant which party occupies the Whitehouse; but they must each show leadership that places the Constitution at the helm of steering the country. Those who simply pursue our nation's highest office for political clout or legacy are the precise cause of poor leadership and little confidence in government. Until Americans elect a rational and patriotic citizen who is both qualified and focused primarily on the well being of the nation, we will be forced to live under the wathc of the most elite and the least in support of the endurance of the nation.
Perhaps there has never been an organization of political interest that has fallen so hard in agonizing defeat as the GOP establishment did in yesterday's Delaware and New York primaries. For the purpose of being direct, I will pass over the New York results for this article, and instead focus on the ruthless results of the First State, and how they relate to the climate of the nation.
Notwithstanding partisan views, any American with a generally impartial attitude could fully appreciate the incredibly poor sportsmanship and ungracious attitude of Congressman Michael Castle as he delivered his concession speech on Tuesday night. The brief and clearly rushed statement, which mostly worked in a self serving manner to promote the liberal Republican for his work over the past 40 years failed to mention the name of victorious nominee Christine O'Donnell, despite Castle's supposed honor and respect in politics. It could be that facing a 6% point loss was just too much for the old moderate to take, yet his less than cordial response to the people's decision is still inexcusable.
Before facing the voters, Castle attempted to simply run a popularity campaign, slinging mud in secrecy at O'Donnell only after her own organization received a boost from the activist Tea Party Express. According to his campaign, Castle's young opponent was both a con artist and a fraud, a person incapable of paying her bills and with views far outside the centrist path of Delaware's political history. And now, his career finally ended, the Congressman only helps spread the fire by refusing to endorse O'Donnell's victorious campaign.
It might be true that sometimes politics get out of hand, but failing to help one's own party in a critical year because of a humiliating defeat is unbecoming of good public servants. More so, its is a simple reflection on the type of man Michael Castle is: a disconnected, self-interested opportunist. His career certainly stretched long and far, from service in the state house, to governor, and finally to the representative seat, which he has held for almost eighteen years. Truth be told, he had ample attempts to run for the Senate--perhaps even the presidency, but turned them down for the sake of political expediency and comfort. Assuming Castle would only run as a governor or congressman, he might have tried to take Delaware's upper house seat in 1990, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2006, or 2008, yet he stood aside out of respect for Joe Biden. Only once the playing field was absolutely leveled did Castle wade into the possibility of becoming a United States Senator, and his campaign still failed to reach out to the common voters, instead clinging to his poor political credentials like a dog to a thrown out bone.
Regardless of Castle's behavior however, it is time for America to embrace the prospect of Christine O'Donnell as the next United States Senator from the State of Delaware. Not only has she stood up consistently for American values, but her platform is also in line with much of Delaware's population, which according to Gallup Polling dissents from the healthcare package, tax increases, and even elements of cap and trade.
Even beyond the obvious, it is entirely possible for O'Donnell to route Democrat Chris Coons come November, especially if Republican forces fall behind her campaign and promote a positive, small business message to the voters. As an insurgent conservative in a liberal state, O'Donnell is the test of Republican traction with even more moderate voters for the election in 2012. If cards are played correctly, she can win, and even by a respectable margin.
It is important to remember two major elements to this possibility. First, O'Donnell has run two state wide campaigns, the latter in 2008, when she captured 35% of the popular vote, despite running against a vice presidential nominee and having only $100,000 for the effort. Now she stands able to beat the opposition with both the absence of the Biden name, and his candidacy for the vice executive post.
For all that is claimed and advertised, Chris Coons is not a very impressive candidate, having served as a county executive for only five years, and prior to that possessing little national experience with a federal campaign. In fact, despite his seemingly impressive array of degrees from Amherst and Yale, Coons is employing tactics rather under handed for such a proposed intellectual. His movement recently listed O'Donnell as being bizarre and out of touch, even going so far as to imply she might be mentally delusional.
Victory in 2010 is about values, not convenience. Michael Castle would have represented everything wrong with our system: the status quo, establishment picks, and little change in government. Yet Christine O'Donnell has the capacity to change what is wrong in our nation and create a new future of prosperity for us all. Were the National Alliance Party to field a candidate in a race such as this, they would embody the same qualities as Miss O'Donnell, and thus she receives our utterly complete support and encouragement. To change Washington, we must change the process, and as a senator she will be part of that revelatory shift in policy.
Cate Ashton National Alliance Vice President for Operations
English novelist Henry Fielding once brazenly stated that "public schools are the nurseries of all vice and immorality." I caution from adding this as a universal and unchangeable label to the American education system, yet the need for a better institution of mainstream education is overtly prevalent in our nation is obvious and takes little preparation or skill to spot sight of.
Shortly after taking office in 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act in an effort to combat the statistically low test scores of students over the past decade. And while the plan was a general success, it did so at the expense of some schools with lower averages, cutting off funding to classrooms in which students simply did not make the accepted minimum. In spite of its movements towards stronger grade schools and enforced preparation for colleges, both positives to the mainstream, the bill was unfair overall because it did not address the central issue of the culture of poor instruction and academic behavior.
To be absolutely fair however, the other major party of the United States, led currently by President Barack Obama, has also failed to steer schools away from poor habits and academia, instead exacerbating the issue by voting to continuously increase the benefits of teacher's unions and instructors, all while these figures bring about the unacceptable results within our public schools. Yet one might ask, if salary spikes or the cutting of funding is not working, than what possibly can?
The answer is plain in its stating yet complex in detail: a radical reconstruction of the places of learning for most of the younger American population. Such an shaped system would be based on classical education, dispelling demolition of the historical figures who give children hope, and an imprinting of America as a nation of greatness--not failure, in the minds of the next generation.
In keeping with a commitment to discipline and self-resolution, students would recite not only the Pledge of Allegiance, but an oath in concrete embrace of education and with a tenet of dedication to success and accomplishment. Furthermore, students would wear uniforms to learn self respect, and administrators would be given authority no only to teach, but to instruct leadership qualities in each of their pupils.
In the vein of compensation, school teachers must stop being fed massive benefits through the federal system if their standards are not at least above average. As we live in the day of public sector unions, it is all too easy for bosses of these greed-based organizations to extort humongous concessions from the weak backbone of the national government even while they bring about terrible results in our schools. By eliminating unions from the schools systems, and placing raises on a merit based system of class performance, we as a nation can take away the tremendous issue of poor instruction in the schoolroom.
On academic matters, the centerpiece curriculum would be focused on the United States Constitution, requiring children from the age of 14 to not only orally explain the document, but also write in full about its factors, as well as how they affect life in America. Besides making studying members more aware of government and more capable of debate, it would prevent a distraction from the need of new businesspeople, professionals, and other active citizens to grow our economy. Our public schools must produce positive entrants into society, not the miscreant individuals who leach off of government welfare programs because they were never given the encouragement and stimulation for true success.
Government may not be adequate at dealing with most of the pressing issues in our country sensibly, yet the one area in which it can have an involved and worthy impact is within the classroom. With prudence, respect, and wisdom, our students can move to the levels of success seen in other countries, beginning to take charge of their own generation without fear or reservation in the days and years of the future.
In recent hours, the Obama Administration announced its plans for a new fiscal blitz against the wavering economy with a carefully labeled "economic plan." Quick to respond after reporters attempted to place the new attempt into the same category as the Administration's earlier stimulus package, the President furiously insisted on giving it the precautionary tag of the aforementioned plan, hoping to avoid a parallel comparison with his all but universally loathed "cures" for our nation's monetary and fiscal problems.
Whether Barack Obama employs more rhetoric or even none at really is irrelevant at the point in history, and will not truly help us save us from the pitfall of an extended or double dipped recession within our economy. It is not that any members of the current majority government honestly feel or can prove the future benefits of the first and now proposed second stimulus; rather, they know the prior attempt was all a worthless facade, and the second will mirror its same classifications.
No, the Administration and the Congress is tying everything to the hated word of Capitol Hill, the binding fragment that should not inhabit the minds of our leaders as they make decisions,l yet is all too present in our present state of governance: political ideology. Even in its most mild form, the sensation has so passionately seized hold of the Democratic Party and the President that it now threatens to become the key ticket to both of their downfalls in this fresh decade.
What must be understood in explaining this is that the top dogs of the Democratic Leadership, most notably Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer, ran in 2006 and 2008 not with a European-style social democratic platform, but with a more moderate, fix Washington strategy. Americans were less appreciative of the Democrats than simply angry at the Republicans, and without too much difficulty, the center-leftist party coasted to an admirable victory, capturing both houses and inflicting several humiliating defeats on the incumbent Republicans. Two years later in 2008, the Democrats tried to play the same card, interrupted only by the presence of a somewhat annoying presidential candidate who was convinced that mass appeal was his ticket to the Whitehouse. He went from closing Guantanamo Bay, to fixing the economy, to trying terrorists in America, with a touch of everything to please the unsatisfiable populace, and came out on top.
Now President Obama and his party's leaders are struggling to cover for the unrealistic policies which he foolishly proposed in order to win the 2008 election. After all the fundraising and claims of future prosperity, his government is boiling down to an atrocious mix of braggart ways and projected, not sincere, leadership.
With his latest gambit being a second stimulus package, even the President knows his plans will not work, but he is fixated about the historical view of his ideology. Did he stick his guns as a social democrat, or dispel Keynesian philosophy for fundamentalist common sense? Truth unveiled, Barack Obama cannot stand the notion of his ideology being publicly versed as ineffective a wrong. His type of persona will always object, arguing long after his presidency that "too much obstructionism was involved," and that "the time was not right" for his plans to reach positive fruition.
Despite the endless sentences of jargon we will be forced to endure both in defense of this new package and afterwards, good men must push on for beneficial additions to help the economy. As the National Alliance Foundation has made clear, the key to recovery is not in more government, or in breaks only for corporations, but in the restarting of the small business community to provide jobs and opportunity to the commonwealth. Entrepreneurs, armed with a restructured policy that aims to eliminate business income tax and hands out credits for companies who invest in domestically produced products will boost our state of fiscal stability to a healthy zone of general success in the near future.
If President Obama desires to mend his image with the voters, then he must shift his range of vision to focus on helping businesses survive, not in paying off union members with large checks from the taxpayer's pocket. In fact, it would be far wiser to simply give the money to businesses through loans and to state and local governments. Federal programs are known for their ineptitude and poor results, verse the wiser actions of councilors and delegates closer to the public.
Our recovery from this recession will not come from the government; it shall be made up of the efforts and bravery of the small business community, which is the heart and soul of the American People.
John Lai
National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General
I always feel a painful touch of nostalgic melancholy when reading of the great conquests and works of older nation leagues, and how their once indomitable circumferences of power kindled to a dying status as time goes on. And sad as it might be to deal with, I must make yet another warning marker for the oncoming collapse and assumption of irrelevance by the past great nation bloc, the United Kingdom. Even as times change, the fragile delicacy which is the British governmental system remains the same: open to deconstruction, and fragile on the preservation of individual freedom.
Largely, Britain's loss of hope is due to the shifting sands of its constitution, as well as its system of courts and legislature. Although the earliest days of British government by Walpole, and even to Gladstone and Disraeli, the olden parliamentary system worked brilliantly. Nobles presided over the House of Commons, and the prime minister was a mere extension of the still powerful monarchic authority, which at least generally knew best when it came to the country's defense.
In recent days however, the tide of good governance has turned to one instead of insipid and dangerous appeasement rule, threatening the former superpower alongside an equally deadly force in the spreading of Sharia Law within its borders. In modern Britain, a ruling body is formed by the majority party group of the Commons, which then chooses a candidate for the executive office of the nation, the premiership. Providing that the lower house possesses at least a decent majority, they essentially receive a one party mandate for the nation. Never mind the wills of the people, for according to analysts today, the country's system is far more democratic that the so called "imperialistic presidency" of the United States. Besides a slight tenure of bills within the upper House of Lords, most any law can come to the desks of Members of Parliament on a Monday, and be law within the space of several days, no matter how infringing it might be on the rights of the people.
But wait, what rights of the people? Are those not reserved for the incivility of the American system? Without mincing words, those two questions are a key particle of the reason why Britain stands ready to capitulate to the domestic insurrection of religious fanatics to this very day: the country has no central documentation of a constitution. Sure, legal commentators will point to the collections of manuscripts and royal papers which are supposed to supplant a fully adopted document for the British people, but these are hardly enough to guarantee personal liberties and freedom from government oppression.
Consider for example a recent tenant of law adopted by England, which makes the incitement of violence or religious hatred a imprisonment carrying offense. First instated by Tony Blair's Labour Government in 2006, the law gives particular shielding to those of the Christian faith, but its greater focus, after pressure from pro-Middle Eastern social groups, places exorbitant protections on the religion of Islam, which is growing phenomenally fast in Great Britain. While the world should still offer ample respect to Blair for his legacy, this law was potentially his major blunder in the surrender of the royalist nation to the extremist religion. Because although plenty of citizens speaking out against the festering radicalism of Muslim activists have been locked up by constabulary officers, the sword edge reflecting the Muslim population has overwhelmingly been blunted. In fact, the Islamic community did not think twice before helping to charge filmmaker and Dutch legislator Geert Wilders with incitement of racial hatred, as shown here. Yet even as crowds of Muslims advocated the beheading of George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the end of the British State, the police did nothing to arrest the perpetrators.
All good intended people across the world should hope and pray that Britain's government comes to its senses, yet the likelihood of such an occurrence is not in a healthy range of any sort. For his own part, Gordon Brown only helped to encourage the Muslim extremism during his three years as premier, culminating with the banning of conservative talk show host Michael Savage from entering the United Kingdom in June 2009 due to the man's passionate tirades against radicalism within the Islamic faith.
A little more than a year later, the new and bright faced Conservative Party Prime Minister, David Cameron, given the chance to revert the damage done, instead chose to stall his action, upholding the unimportant decision against Savage. Cameron, who has run from his election to the opposition leadership in December 2005 as a progressive liberal conservative, seems wrapped up in satisfying his extended political career as a caretaker leader in Westminster, and not risking his tenure with difficult choices as an executive. Much of the world has held high hopes for the new British head of state, yet Cameron's unwillingness to take up the helm of Churchill, Thatcher, and Blair is costing the country dearly. No matter his Conservative membership, Cameron has an intense desire to be a typical European everyman premier, attune to Yves Leterme of Belgium and Frederik Reinfeldt of Sweden. In these systems, the prime minister can change economic policies, yet social or legal elements remain largely untouched as the nation is preconditioned to stay fixed in government equilibriums for these issues near indefinitely.
Whether Blair, Brown, and Cameron realize or not, their governments are helping extremist Islam to gain more influence and control within Great Britain. Placing someone who disagrees with the religion on a list alongside murderers and Nazis is not prudent; it simply hands another victory to the adrenaline pumped hopes of the most disagreeable. Unless radical constitutional and legal reforms, couples with a new system of government are firmly adopted, the once great empire will be lost to a one time vote for the application of Sharia Law across the United Kingdom. The means for such a horrific bill are present, only requiring elected leaders to turn a blind eye to allow it through.
Michael Veramendi
National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues
I think it's best to begin this piece by making a rather obvious distinction: the National Alliance Party shares close to zero sympathies to the political positions of activist and former Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader. When one examines even the general viewpoints of Mr. Nader, they are clearly way out of line with both the American way of life, and the concerns of most of the mainstream population. But while that may be true, I feel inclined as a member of this organization to reach out and show him the respect garnered by even the wisest who promote values similar to those of our viewpoint.
Despite being considered irrelevant by both parties at the onset of the 2000 Presidential election, Nader ascended to a position of the so called "spoiler," after his campaign for chief executive gathered an impressive 2.74% of the popular votes. Since the man's campaign received such a large number of its ballots from the State of Florida, Democratic strategists have since contended that his presence on the voting papers cost Vice President Al Gore the general election.
I feel this is unfair on many accounts, and simply surmises to a juvenile sore loser attitude from the DNC, which could not even take the presidency from George W. Bush in 2004, despite their tremendous advantage, and Nader's far lesser portion of the votes. These can briefly be covered by including Gore's weak campaign, the presidential debates commission, and Nader's own message for the year 2000.
Perhaps in an admirable attempt to avoid the "no clear definition" characteristic given to former President George H.W. Bush after the Republican's copying of Ronald Reagan's image to win in 1988, Al Gore distanced himself, rather disastrously, from Bill Clinton's administration of America. Considering the Arkansas Democrat's tendency to present a record of messy and unsettling personal relationships, as well as the South's aversion to such public behavior, this might actually be viewed as wise, accept for the fact that the Vice President's alternative was nothing short of weak and ineffective.
And so Al Gore became the paladin for environmental protection in the United States, leaving behind the strongest issue for his candidacy in that year: the 3 trillion dollar surplus left by Bill Clinton. The merits of the money reserves can be debated, but no matter what is said, it made a terrific ploy for a strong and difficult to beat campaign. Instead, Donna Brazile, Gore's manager, allowed him to pursue a reckless and shoddy plan which was doomed to fail against the charismatic pro-tax cuts Texas governor, George W. Bush. Fused together, the following ad reveals just how out of touch Gore's message felt to a public in which less than 10% today feel protecting the planet is an important issue (Gallup Poll).
As the election came around to presidential debates, little action was taken by the Democratic Party to help include Mr. Nader, despite his insurgent strength in choice polls and in battleground states. Not surprisingly, the commission for debates, controlled by both former party chairs of the two major electoral factions and a large number of corporations, refused to allow Ralph Nader to attend any of their three sessions, and even went as far as to deny him a seat despite his registered invitation and ticket for attendance. According to commission rules, candidates must poll at least 5% in several national questionnaires before being admitted, and Nader did not qualify with enough support. In minced terms, he was not relevant to the equation--accept that he became very relevant as soon as his movement hurt the Democrats.
Ever since Al Gore conceded the race to George W. Bush, the Democratic Party has attempted to slander the man for his hopeful candidacy, absolutely avoiding how his message drew members of all parties and ideologies to cast their ballots for him in 2000. As noted before, Nader's views can seem ridiculous at some corners, yet his message for the turn of the century was to forge a strong alliance between the people and honest businesspeople in America. The Democrats failed to deliver their historical populist message, and neglected to use the strongest element of advantage: the Clinton surplus. What should have been an easy victory turned into a milestone of defeat as the party scrambled to realign, and failed again, in 2004.
Ralph Nader may never become president, nor should anyone hope he does, yet the man deserves our respect and consideration. Standing firm against two of the largest and most powerful parties in the United States is not cakewalk; it requires tenacity and an iron resilience against the opposition. For all his work, Ralph Nader has seen even his closest friends betray him for the Democratic Party, yet a stronger force is allied with him: countless Americans who desire fundamental change in the system of government.
With all the tumultuous happenings of the 2010 election, it can often become difficult to decipher which candidates are after serving their constituents, and those who see a high salary and governmental power as more important. As an organization which advocates a new standard of rule in Washington, as well as the return of power to the masses, the National Alliance Party is not quick to simply go about handing down endorsements to partisan hopefuls in the forthcoming races without good reason or understanding of their views and plans to shape a stronger future for the United States of America.
All told, the National Alliance Party is choosing to step forward and support a fantastic candidate in the figure of Jaime Herrera, who has launched a vigorous effort to represent the people of Washington State as the 3rd district representative to the People's House in our nation's capital. Despite facing a formidable foe in Democratic state representative Dennny Heck, Jaime has stuck to a positive message of job creation and work to help bolster small business across the 3rd district and the country.
After a life long commitment to public service, Herrera has become a staunch advocate for governmental reform, with a comprehensive plan to enforce regulations and penalties against lawmakers and other Washington insiders who breach public trust during their careers. Her plan will not only help people to gain more trust and faith in government, but also set a high bar for the performance and service of congresspeople, ensuring that their hearts are set on being true stewards of the public's faith and voting ballots.
Beyond this, Jaime gives inspiration to women across America to stand up for positive, small government values, and avoid being sidelined in the political process. Electing her to the house will set a new modus operandi for elections and the process of Washington, refusing to permit the elite circles of power from festering and solidifying their control over whom is allowed entrance to lawmaking procedures and structures.
Washington desperately needs a new wave of leadership to cleanse its halls of the marred corruption which has permeated since January 2007, and Jaime Herrera is the ideal person to lead that very charge for the rights and sake of the American people.
.jpg)
