Miss. ballot deadline dispute lingers By Jack Elliot Jr. Biloxi Sun Herald (Mississippi) (link)
Heard the true story about the guy who wanted on the presidential ballot in Mississippi?
He sends his qualifying papers by taxi to the Mississippi secretary of state's office. The cab driver arrives at 5 p.m. on the day qualifying is to end. The office is closed. The cabbie leaves the papers on the doorstep.
The filing deadline is unmet, and the candidate's name is left off the ballot.
The candidate sues.
A year of legal wrangling later and Brian Moore is back at square one. He's the Socialist Party USA presidential candidate in 2008 who wanted to be on the Mississippi ballot as the Natural Law Party nominee. U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee in Mississippi threw out Moore's lawsuit in March.
A panel of 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed Lee but abstained from reaching its own conclusion. The panel said the election dispute "is based on an interpretation of uncertain state law, which should be resolved at the state level before we consider wading into a constitutional thicket."
The 5th Circuit panel suggested Lee do the same so the issue could be dealt with in the Mississippi courts.
Moore's attorney, Mark R. Brown of Columbus, Ohio, says procedurally Moore would file suit in state court, while Lee would put the federal case on hold. Once the Mississippi court ruled, Lee could then reconsider Moore's challenge.
"We're happy to be back in court ... kind of look at it as a partial victory. We haven't won the whole game yet," Brown said.
Brown says such parallel proceedings are not uncommon, especially in cases where a federal appeals court is looking for guidance from a state court before going off and interpreting a state law.
"The key is - and this is Mr. Moore's position and my position - we need to straighten this out for future elections for whoever it is who runs," Brown says.
Moore's argument is that the secretary of state's office shouldn't have closed at 5 p.m. on filing day. Moore says Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann should have kept the office open until midnight. He says nothing in state law governing the filing deadline for presidential candidates sets a 5 p.m. deadline.
Moore says Hosemann, by his actions, was enforcing a deadline without legislative direction and devising his own rules for candidates to get on the ballot.
Hosemann is steadfast in his position.
"The secretary of states office is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. every business day unless closed for the holidays designated by the Legislature and the governor," Hosemann said in a statement. "This is as required by Mississippi law. The office will not extend its hours of operation for any election filing unless the Legislature changes the hours."
In court papers, Hosemann denies Moore's constitutional rights to political participation were compromised by his office closing at 5 p.m.
Hosemann and Moore agree that some election statutes set deadlines of 5 p.m., just not the one addressing presidential candidate filing.
There, according to the 5th Circuit panel, is the conundrum.
Hosemann, the panel said, "has made it plain that he intends to enforce the 5 p.m. deadline in future elections."
Hosemann contends it is unlikely that Moore or any other presidential candidate will miss a deadline again.
Lee had found Moore's arguments to be moot because the election was over and because Moore and other candidates were now on notice that the filing deadline is 5 p.m.
That is beside the point, said the 5th Circuit panel.
The 5th Circuit panel said while the issue is moot for Moore related to the 2008 election, the filing deadline controversy could resurface unless some court clears it up.
"As long as the complained-of deadline is in place, future candidates in Mississippi will be subject to it and will need to conform to its demands. Thus, the effects of the deadline will persist," the panel said.
Fifth Circuit Says that Mississippi "10 Minutes Too Late" Case is Not Moot; Tells Lower Court to Settle the Issue
Fifth Circuit Says that Mississippi "10 Minutes Too Late" Case is Not Moot; Tells Lower Court to Settle the Issue Ballot Access News (link)
On December 18, the 5th circuit issued an opinion in Moore v Hosemann, 09-60272, the case filed by Socialist Party presidential candidate Brian Moore last year, when the Mississippi Secretary of State refused to accept his presidential elector paperwork because it was submitted at 5:10 p.m. on the filing deadline. The Secretary of State rejected the paperwork because it arrived ten minutes after he had closed his office. The building itself was still open, so the paperwork had been left at the door of the Secretary of State’s office. On March 10, 2009, the U.S. District Court had ruled against Moore, saying the case is moot. The District Court said, “It does not seem reasonably likely that other prospective presidential candidates will fail to timely file their qualifying papers before the Secretary of State’s office closes at 5 p.m. on the date of the qualifying deadline.”
But, the 5th circuit disagreed, saying, “The Secretary has made it plain that he intends to enforce the 5 p.m. deadline in future elections. He adds that the chance is very small that Moore or any other presidential candidate will miss the deadline again. That is beside the point, however. As long as the complained-of deadline is in place, future candidates in Mississippi will be subject to it and will need to conform to its demands. Thus, the effects of the deadline will persist.”
Therefore, the case goes back to the U.S. District Court, to settle the main issue. Moore’s case depends on the fact that Mississippi election laws do specify an hourly deadline for some kinds of paperwork. However, the law governing filings of presidential electors does not mention an hourly deadline, so the implication is that if the paperwork comes in on the deadline day at any hour, it is timely. The 5th circuit opinion also says that the U.S. District Court should refer the case to the Mississippi state courts, because generally, federal courts do not interpret or construe the actual meaning of state laws; that is a job for state courts. Therefore, probably a state court will eventually make the decision as to whether Moore’s paperwork should have been accepted.
The decision is by Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, and is co-signed by Judge Edith Jones, another Reagan appointee, and Judge Harold DeMoss, a Bush, Sr. appointee. This is the first time the 5th Circuit has issued an opinion favorable to a minor party or independent candidate since 1996, when it invalidated a Texas law requiring independent candidate petitions to include the voter registration affidavit number of each petition signer. That case was Texas Independent Party v Kirk, 84 F.3d 178.
"Ten Minutes Too Late to File" Case Argued in 5th Circuit
"Ten Minutes Too Late to File" Case Argued in 5th Circuit Ballot Access News (link)
On November 4, the 5th circuit heard arguments in Moore v Hosemann, 09-60272, the case that arose in 2008 when presidential elector declarations of candidacy for Brian Moore were turned in to the Mississippi Secretary of State at 5:10 p.m. The office was still open, but the Secretary of State said they were ten minutes too late. Brian Moore was the Socialist Party presidential candidate, although in Mississippi he had been nominated by the Natural Law Party, a ballot-qualified party. Mississippi election laws do specify that 5 p.m. is the deadline for many other kinds of paperwork, but says nothing about 5 p.m. for anything concerning presidential elections. The Mississippi Secretary of State said he had his own regulation about that, but Article II of the U.S. Constitution says only state legislatures can write election procedures concerning presidential electors.
Judge Edith Jones seemed unsympathetic, but she might have been playing devils’ advocate. Judge Harold DeMoss seemed very interested in the case and asked tough questions for both sides. Judge Jerry Smith only asked about whether the case is moot.
New Jersey Democrat Challenges Socialist Party Petition
New Jersey Democrat Challenges Socialist Party Petition Ballot Access News (link)
The Socialist Party's only candidate for the legislature in New Jersey this year has been removed from the November 2009 ballot, even though he submitted 150 signatures to meet a requirement of 100 signatures. Tino Rozzo had been running in Assembly District One, in the southern tip of New Jersey. Signatures are presumed to be valid unless a challenge is filed. Rozzo's petition was challenged by a Democratic Party activist. New Jersey elects its Assemblymembers every two years. In the last election in this district, in 2007, there had been no minor party or independent candidates. Each district elects two members. The 2007 vote had been: Democrats 27,420 and 23,978; Republicans 22,075 and 21,489.
Rozzo last ran for this seat in 2003, when he received 770 votes. Rozzo did not fight the recent challenge to his petition, and will instead be the Socialist Party's candidate for Lieutenant Governor. Under a new procedure in New Jersey, each gubernatorial candidate during July must choose a Lieutenant Governor running mate. The gubernatorial candidates of the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties, still have not chosen their Lieutenant Governor candidates.
This Oklahoma Gazette article on ballot access quotes a Common Cause official saying that, "the Socialists were the second-biggest party in Oklahoma for a while".
Richard Winger of Ballot Access News says this is an exaggeration, but he adds: "The Socialist Party got 20.8% of the gubernatorial vote in 1914", and "after the 1914 election, the Socialist Party had 6 state legislators in Oklahoma", compared to 22 Republicans.
Even if we weren't the second-largest party in the past, you can help make us the largest in the future!
Brian Moore Files 5th Circuit Brief Against Mississippi Ballot Access News (link)
On June 8, Brian Moore, the 2008 Socialist Party presidential nominee, filed his brief in Moore v Hosemann, 09-60272, in the 5th circuit. The issue is whether the Secretary of State should have accepted the paperwork to put Moore on the ballot last year. Mississippi election laws generally specifiy that certain paperwork is due by 5 p.m. of the deadline day. However, the law does not set a time deadline for paperwork involving presidential elector candidates; the law merely says the deadline is 60 days before the general election. Therefore, a neutral person would probably maintain that papers delivered on the deadline day are timely, if filed on the evening of that day. If it is impractical for a state office to remain open past 5 p.m., a reasonable state office would probably accept paperwork by the start of business on the next day, if the paperwork had been shoved under the door during the night. However, the Secretary of State did not accept the paperwork, which arrived at 5:10 p.m. on the deadline. The Moore lawsuit argues that the Secretary of State was wrong. It also argues that, in any event, the U.S. Constitution requires that state legislatures set the rules for presidential elections, and that the Secretary of State had no authority to administratively set a 5 p.m. deadline when the legislature itself had not done so.
It may seem that the practical significance of this lawsuit is small. On the other hand, this type of dispute is surprisingly common. Paperwork for candidates is frequently filed in the last hour on the deadline day, and there have been many legal disputes over whether or not the paperwork was submitted barely in time, or barely out of time.
(Brian Moore was the Socialist Party's candidate for President of the United States in 2008.)
Mike Caddell of Radio Free Kansas interviewed 2008 Socialist Party USA Presidential Candidate Brian Moore on Friday, 20 March 2009. A recording can be found on Mike's website, part of Radio Free Kansas. Mike recently interviewed Ray McGovern, former CIA agent and social activist; and Cindy Sheehan, antiwar activist.
Brian's interview was initially aired Thursday evening, 19 March, at 10 PM Central Time, and will be on online until 27 March. Technical notes: Brian's interview begins at 5 minutes and 40 seconds, then is interrupted at 13 minutes and 20 seconds. The interview has to be restarted at 15 minutes and 40 seconds. If you move ahead to minute 23, the interview can continue, without having to listen anew to the start. The interview ends at 57 minutes and 25 seconds. The actual interview length is about 42 minutes long.
Historic Socialist Notes: Kansas' involvement with socialism began in the 1890's, with the collapse of the Populist Movement. It was mostly popular in the southeastern part of the state. In 1901 the Socialist Party of Kansas joined other socialist parties nationwide to form the Socialist Party of America at a unity convention in Indianapolis. The Kansas group was already known worldwide as a hub of socialist activity due to a weekly Socialist newspaper published by Julias Wayland, in Girard, Kansas. The paper was called "Appeal to Reason," and had the largest circulation of any weekly in America, with 760,000 readers. Eugene V. Debs, Upton Sinclair, Helen Keller and Jack London were its regular contributing writers.
Highlights of the 42 minute interview:
(Minutes 9-13 ff) Brian spoke of his entry into the party, and his knowledge of the socialist party's history. He acknowledged that socialism gained publicity in the 2008 campaign due to government bailouts, the red-baiting and fear-mongering of McCain and Palin and Joe the Plumber, along with Obama's comments about "re-distributing the wealth." (Minutes 23 ff) Brian criticized Obama extensively as a "capitalist," taking large amounts of contributions from Wall Street and the finance community, has plans of retaining 50,000 troops in Iraq and increasing American troops in Afghanistan by 17,000 more initially.
Brian also spoke of capitalism being selfish, based on greed, and that it operates at the expense of our natural resources with "self-interest" being the motivating factor. He summarized socialism based on a communal sharing and the workers determining the products and services to our fellow man for equal benefit. (30 minutes ff) Brian spoke of ballot access for minor political parties and candidates as "the civil rights issue of the future."
(40 minutes ff) Brian criticized the Democratic and Republican parties, President Obama and the corporate and special interests of controlling America with their wealth and power. (42 minutes ff) Brian spoke of the history of "radical reform that came from the Midwest, and from farmers who migrated from Europe, and brought their social ideas with them." Brian said there was "no reason to fear radical ideas" or radical thought. Radio Host Caddell spoke of seeing "No recovery in sight," and thought that the "Bailout won't work." Brian concurred, and said that the Socialist Party "needed to develop specific plans to prepare" for any transition from capitalism to socialism in order to "avoid the country falling into the hands of dictators, right wing or left wing."
(45 minutes ff) Brian spoke of Cuba and its economic rights in the areas of health, education and housing and how it is putting the United States to shame, especially "in light of the Cuban Embargo that we have imposed such economic hardship on Cuba for the last 50 years." Caddell stated that Cuba appears "more self-sufficient" than America. (50 minutes ff) Mike Caddell quoted a Dr. Palmer Johnson who sees the American empire as imploding, along the closing of military bases overseas, and an imminent economic collapse. Brian concurred and stated that the Socialist Party's platform reflected those same thoughts. Brian gave the Socialist Party USA website, name of its monthly publication, the "Socialist," and informed the public that the SP's national office was located in New York. Brian urged people to Google the Socialist Party USA in order to find the website as well.
Brian said it is "difficult for minor parties to win electorally in our system, but still possible." Some Socialists, Brian stated, believe "the only road to socialism can only be achieved through violent overthrow of private corporations through the workplace, and not through the electoral process."
(Minutes 52 ff) Radio Host Caddell spoke of "aid to the elderly" in America, in the early part of the 20th century, as "only coming from charity organizations and individuals." Brian stated that "It was not until 1935" did our country institute a social security system," thanks to the socialist ideas and advocacy." Brian said there is "no reason to fear a radical transformation of our society," calling for the need for "More Americans to have radical tendencies, without fear or trepidation." Mr. Caddell concurred, and said he defined the word "radical" as "a study of the root of the problem."
Brian again addressed the need for more third parties in America to overcome the power of the media and private corporations, and to "change the judicial court decisions that have given equal powers to corporations as much as to citizens."
The interview ended at 57 minutes and 25 seconds. Mr. Caddell then continued the program with news from Radio Pacifica in Berkeley, California, with news about Israel and the Palestinians, an interview with Ray McGovern and a story on the power of the Israeli lobby group, AIPAC.
Brian thanked host Mike Caddell for the contributions the state of Kansas has made for Socialism in America.
[Note from Brian: Radio host Mike Caddell's wife is a practicing physician, who was one of a small group of physicians across the state of Kansas to provide abortions when a fellow Kansas physician was murdered by an anti-abortion fanatic seven years ago. Recently Dr. Caddell returned to medical school for training in another medical specialty].
Stewart Alexander, candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party's nomination for California Governor in 2010, will appear on the Fox News Channel show Your World with Neil Cavuto. Alexander's appearance will be aired this Wednesday, 4 March at 4 pm Eastern (1 pm Pacific).
All Hail Comrade Lindsey Graham By John Nichols The Nation (link)
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham's usual allies are not impressed with the Republican senator's suggestion that the time might have come to start nationalizing banks.
"Did hell just officially freeze over?" grumbled Fox News host Stuart "I am refugee from (British socialism)" Varney, "A top Republican senator says he is open to nationalizing our banks..."
So opened a segment where Varney welcomed Brian Moore, the Socialist Party's 2008 presidential candidate, to the cable redoubt of yahoo economics. Moore agreed with Comrade Graham's prognosis.
Varney did not.
And it made for a bizarre (yet oddly refreshing) five minutes of something akin to debate about the current economic crisis.
The smirking Varney spent most of the program spouting nonsense about "the Politburo" to Moore, a thoughtful democratic socialist whose views are more in line with those of Franklin Roosevelt than Joe Stalin.
Noting that Social Security, unemployment insurance and child labor laws were all socialist ideas that were embraced by Democrats -- and Republicans -- and are now cherished by the American people, Moore turned the tables on Varney, reminding the host that, "Capitalism has sapped our economy. We are on the verge of collapse..."
Moore even got to ask why, at this point in the crisis, trillions of federal tax dollars are still being streamed into the accounts of big banks that are bent on squandering it.
Of course, Fox is ridiculous, and Varney's inability to distinguish between democratic socialism and Stalinism is pathetic
But rare is the American television program that lets an actual socialist spar with a free-market jihadist.
That's the refreshing part.
One need not be a socialist to recognize the need of socialist ideas in a debate that is painfully unrealistic if the range of responses to the crisis runs from a Republican longing for the return of Reaganomics to a Democratic longing for Bill Clinton's kinder-gentler variations on Reaganomics.
So kudos to Fox, kudos to Moore and kudos to Comrade Lindsey Graham for inadvertently opening up a discussion of bank nationalization, socialism and -- dare we say it? -- rational alternatives to making more of the mistakes that got us into this mess.
The Nation: Socialists support capping executive pay
Donald Trump and the Socialists Versus the CEOs By John Nichols The Nation (link)
There has been a good deal of grumbling from Wall Street about President Obama's proposal to cap CEO pay at companies that accept federal bailout money.
The line of complaint generally comes around to the question: "How can you get good help for $500,000?" Donald Trump--who knows a thing or two about attracting executive talent, or at least plays someone who does on TV -- thinks that's silly.
The other night, CNN's Larry King asked the Trump Organization CEO what he thought about the president's plan to set some executive pay limits:
KING: Is Obama right or wrong to go after these executives with salary caps?
TRUMP: Well, I think he's absolutely right. Billions of dollars is being given to banks and others. You know, once you start using taxpayer money, it's a whole new game. So I absolutely think he's right.
The Socialists agree.
Here's a statement from Brian Moore, who was the Socialist Party candidate for president last year--and who made the very good point that, despite what Sarah Palin said, Barack Obama was neither a capital "S" nor a small "s" socialist:
SPRING HILL, FLORIDA, February 5, 2009 -- President Barack Obama, who on Wednesday imposed $500,000 caps on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving federal bailout money, saying Americans are upset with "executives being rewarded for failure," has joined his 2008 minor party opponent who called for executive caps throughout the presidential election campaign.
Brian Moore, the Socialist Party USA presidential candidate in the 2008 presidential elections, stated on the "Issues" page of his presidential website (www.votebrianmoore.com) to "Cap and reduce corporate profits and excessive executive salary levels while fostering the transfer of corporate ownership and control to workers."
Moore continually advocated in his radio and television interviews, and in debates and presidential forums throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, that there should be a "worker/CEO ratio of no more than 5 to 1."
The Socialist Party platform also states in its "Economics" section that "We call for...a maximum income [for executives] of no more than ten times the minimum."
Moore does embrace Mr. Obama's criticism of corporate executives when the President was recently quoted that such exorbitant pay is "exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their [corporate and capitalistic] actions that brought about this crisis--a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else."
Moore further added in point 32 of his website's "Issues" page that "During transition to full worker control, [we should] require the private sector to implement a fairer economic system of consumer costs, profit-margins and regulation of services and products."
The former Socialist candidate said that he disagrees with the President's quote, as reported today in the New York Times (Thurs., Feb. 5, 2009) that "We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded...but what upsets people are executives being rewarded for failure..."
Moore disagrees with President Obama's mindset, arguing that that is the trouble with capitalism, it focuses on profit and individual success and wealth instead of focusing "on production for the needs of the community instead." Moore contends that "success can also be rewarded under socialism, but not exorbitantly, or at the expense of the common good." "That is where we differ from Mr. Obama and his capitalistic mindset, his capitalistic political party and the faltering capitalistic economic system which our country is presently burdened by," the former socialist candidate stated.
Moore says that Socialism stands for "a fundamental transformation of the economy," and that only a "global" transformation from capitalism to democratic socialism will provide the conditions for international peace, justice and economic cooperation.
Moore argues that Socialism is seeking a "classless society," one that is fairer and more egalitarian, and where the majority of citizens can benefit from a more democratic economic system, instead of rewarding only the select few at the top. "An executive salary cap, as a bailout condition, is a good start, in our direction toward socialism," Moore happily stated.
So there you have it.
Obama may be struggling to get Republicans and Democrats together. He may even be struggling to get mainstream Democrats and Blue Dog fifth columnists on the same page.
But the president has united Donald Trump and the Socialists.
Just the extremes? Perhaps. But the American people are with Trump and the Socialists. Polls consistently show that roughly two-thirds of Americans (63 percent in a USA Today survey) say it is "very important" to limit the pay of executives whose firms benefit from the plan.
News coverage of Gaza protest organized by Brian Moore
(Brian Moore was the Socialist Party's candidate for President of the United States in 2008.)
Middle East Delicate Topic, Even In Peace Group By Tony Marrero Tampa Tribute, Hernando Today edition (link)
BROOKSVILLE -- The Middle East crisis is so divisive that even members of the local peace group can come down on opposite sides. Several members of the Nature Coast Coalition for Peace and Justice declined to participate in a demonstration Wednesday at the corner of U.S. 19 and Cortez Boulevard to oppose Israel's campaign against Palestinians in Gaza and forcing the U.S. government to condemn the action.
Judy Lee of Spring Hill was among them.
"It's pointless," said Judy Lee, a member of the group since for the last seven years. "I feel having an anti-Israeli (demonstration) is the same as supporting Hamas."
Lee told coalition Chairman Brian Moore she wouldn't be attending for that reason. The group should have had a meeting first to determine whether there was a consensus to hold the demonstration, Lee said.
"It's a group action," she said. "If it's going to represent the group, then the group as a whole should be consulted."
There simply wasn't time, Moore said.
"People are dying," he said. "Sometimes you have to take actions like this. You don't have the luxury of having meetings."
The coalition has about 160 members on its rolls, and 30 of those could be considered active members, Moore said.
He called about a dozen members and found there was enough of a consensus to hold the event without having a formal meeting. By then, more than 500 Palestinians had been killed, Moore said.
Moore said he also is sensing some hesitation among loyal Democrats in the coalition to be critical of President-elect Barack Obama. One member said the group should "let the dust settle" and give Obama a chance to take office and see what kind of action he takes, Moore said.
"Now that Obama's about to be in power they don't want to do anything to jeopardize him," he said.
Fourteen people showed up Wednesday, waving signs with slogans such as "Stop the siege in Gaza" and "Obama: People are dying ... say something."
The group, which has frequently demonstrated against the Iraq war, got the typical mix of supportive and negative reaction from passing motorists. But Moore said there seemed to be a higher number of negative responses - mostly the middle finger - this time around.
He wasn't sure why, but his hunch is that the United States has supported Israel, and people see any challenge of American policy as unpatriotic.
The history of the Middle East crisis is long and complex, but in the end it comes down to self defense, Lee said.
"How long do people lob grenades in your back yard before you try to stop it," she said.
President Bush has taken that stance, saying Israel has a right to defend itself against the indiscriminate firing of rockets by Hamas into its neighbor.
Doris Taylor also declined to participate Wednesday. Taylor fully supports the peace agenda, but on the Middle East conflict, she said she simply isn't ready to take sides.
"I have mixed feelings," Taylor said. "I've been hearing about those rockets being fired into Israel for quite some time."
Moore's response: "It's a humanitarian crisis and we have to recognize that there's an inordinate amount of deaths and injuries on one side than the other, and it just seems like there's a better way to solve this problem."
Both Lee and Taylor said they won't let the disagreement cause there support for the coalition to waver, though.
"I do have my heart in the peace group," Lee said.
Reporter Tony Marrero can be reached at 352-544-5286 or lmarrero (at) hernandotoday (dot) com.
(Brian Moore was the Socialist Party's candidate for President of the United States in 2008.)
Coalition takes peace protest roadside in Weeki Wachee By Will Vragovic St. Petersburg Times, Hernando County edition (link)
Members and supporters of the Nature Coast Coalition for Peace and Justice hold signs at U.S. 19 and State Road 50 in Weeki Wachee on Wednesday. The coalition organized the demonstration to protest the conflict in the Gaza Strip, the failing economic system and other issues. "We have a conscience, and there are innocent civilians dying" in Gaza, coalition chairman Brian Moore said on his blog. "We've been getting everything from honks to fingers today," he said of the demonstration.
Post-election interview with Brian Moore by Tulane University student
What were the main objectives of the SPUSA and Brian Moore in the 2008 campaign? Do you feel that the 2008 campaign was successful?
To promote the Socialist principles and platform; to encourage the populace not to be afraid of our political party that has a rich heritage in our country and which makes up the social fabric of our society today (i.e. child labor laws, women's suffrage, collective bargaining, 40-hour work weeks, workers compensation, social security, unemployment insurance, etc.). Also, to encourage membership in our party and to encourage others to run for political office on our party's behalf. Other objectives were to raise issues and positions not addressed out of fear by the two major party candidates (end the Iraq war immediately, promote a socialized health system for all citizens and residents as an economic right, nationalize all for-profit corporations and the banks and institutions; object to the federal bailout; advocate full employment, housing and education; oppose nuclear power, militarily and commercially; reduce the defense budget in half; impeach Bush and Cheney, etc.; eliminate all intelligence agencies; promote a radical systemic economic system change)!
A final objective is to offer all Americans an alternative choice of candidates to provide them a vehicle to adequately express their protest of the system and support for new and radical ideas and for real deep change, not a superficial tinkering of reforming a broken economic and political system.
What were the greatest challenges of the 2008 campaign?
Gaining ballot access despite the cumbersome and monumental obstacles in almost every state; participating in any debates with the two major party candidates; gaining recognition and respect from the press and media; lack of funding and financial support for the campaign; partial failure by the party to support our campaign and to receive volunteer support in the individual states from party members for petitioning and financial support.
Running against a major party candidate with $650 million dollars, and his race was a major factor. Many people voted for Barack Obama solely on the basis of race. Even people in our own political party, and many others who traditionally vote third party or independent, overlooked the substance of the issues, and even his changing positions on the issues, solely because they felt electing a black man for the first time would forgive many injustices of the past, and paint a positive picture for the country to the rest of the world. Thus, I consider this election, an aberration, thereby adversely affecting all third parties and minor party candidates.
Do you feel that the media attention resulting in the claims that Barack Obama was a socialist (i.e. appearance on The Colbert Report, etc.) hurt or helped the SPUSA?
It definitely helped. Most Americans did not even know there were any other candidates for president than the two major party candidates, Obama and McCain. Secondly, even though McCain and Sarah Palin implied that "Socialism" was a dirty word, we were able to defend ourselves by accusing them of "red-baiting" and "fear-mongering."
Third, we were able to put a human face on our candidacy and our political party, and most people we had contact with had a positive image of our responses, interaction and common sense that we made in our interviews and arguments. Even my appearance on the Colbert show was perceived by many as "being game," "having a sense of humor," and not getting uptight. So I believe we gained from these experiences, accusations and the exposures turned out well (i.e. Colbert, C-SPAN, Fox-News three times, Al Jazeera TV, CNN twice, 30 national radio interviews, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Tampa Tribune, St. Petersburg Times and the Milwaukee Journal; plus several French and German and Iranian communications).
Fourth, if "socialism" had not been brought up so frequently by the major candidates and the press due to the bailout, we would have been lost and stonewalled completely by the press and media. We received more attention this election, than in the past 70 years, due to the appearance and seeming relevance of "socialism" in this election.
What do you see in the future of the SPUSA?
Growth of the party and membership; more credibility with the press and media and with the populace in general; and a watershed to an alternative economic system when our capitalistic system fails and collapses. We will have to be ready and organized when that occurs.
Do you have any regrets about the way the 2008 campaign was run, or are there any aspects that you feel were especially beneficial?
Regrets: that we knew and understood the ballot access rules better and earlier and that we needed to put in place organizations of new SP members in each and every state where we felt we could gain ballot access: usually in states where the signature requirements are 1,000 to 2,000 and a few larger ones that do not exceed 5,000 required signatures. Had we been ready for that, we may have gotten on 20 states instead of 8 states, plus, being a write-in in 22 other states.
BENEFITS: Our exposure to the media and reasonably successful outcomes, our legal assistance in the state of Ohio, which turned out to be our best state (2,630 votes), the generosity of ideas and money on the part of certain key individuals who made the entire difference in our campaign.
I really do consider our campaign a success, despite the low votes.
Post-election interview with Brian Moore by The Modern Left
Interview with Socialist Party USA 2008 Presidential candidate Brian Moore The Modern Left (link)
Why Socialism? Can you explain for those who aren't familiar with the platform you ran on?
Brian Moore: Because we want to achieve a radical systemic change of economic systems that will better serve the common good, and bring a more egalitarian and quality life than under capitalism. Under capitalism, only a small elite of owners, senior company officers and investors reap the rewards and profits, and they do it on the backs of the common every day worker. They do not share the benefits with those who have worked the most.
Our platform is based on social justice, egalitarianism, and world peace. We have a communal responsibility to our fellow man, and not the concept of "self-interest" that capitalism pushes and tries to legitimize as part of our nature and noble. It is selfish, egotistical, and unfair. It is based on a small group inheriting the wealth and the power, or on those who compete against their colleagues and neighbors. When and how did you become a Socialist?
Brian Moore: I only became a Socialist two years ago, but realized I was a "closet socialist" for the last ten years. As a political candidate I always promoted a national socialized health plan, antiwar, favored a guaranteed annual income, advocated worker control and elimination of corporate control. However, I also grew up in a traditional Irish Catholic family where we were instilled with the spirit of fairness and equality by our parents and religious teachers. I trained in a catholic seminary in the Franciscan Order in the Missions of California, which was dedicated to serving the poor and impoverished peoples of the world.
I also spent almost three years in the U.S. Peace Corps in Latin America and was exposed to the poverty, and inequities of society, and of our country's economic policies on other third and fourth world countries.
What benefits do you feel that Socialism offers to society as opposed to other philosophies like Capitalism?
Brian Moore: Fairness, equality, equal opportunity and economic rights of full employment, access to full education through university participation, access to quality housing and comprehensive medical, dental and mental health benefits. Society is more democratic under socialism, with workers and citizens owning, managing and controlling the companies and communities they live and work it. Decisions are made locally and on a group basis.
Whereas, capitalism is an economic system where decisions are made at the top and come down in a dictatorial fashion. The companies are owned and controlled by a select few. Communities are usually run by a strong local government, or by political leaders who have been bought off by corporations. There really is no participatory decision-making by the majority as is under socialism.
Socialism also de-centralizes government, and takes the power out of the hands of government bureaucrats and a strong military. Socialism relies on citizen input and control, it directors government employees to implement the citizen councils and commissions who set policy and make the decisions.
A new Labor Department report states that employers cut 240,000 jobs in October - bringing the year's total job losses to nearly 1.2 million. Does Socialism offer a solution to the growing unemployment problem?
Brian Moore: Yes, confiscate and ration all for-profit corporations. We transfer ownership, management and control over to the workers, and thus eliminate the big salaries and stocks and dividends that go to a select few at the top who traditionally have inherited the wealth and the power. We decide on the value of the products and services, their prices, and then share in any nominal profits with the workers. More importantly, we reduce drastically industries and institutions that do not contribute to the welfare of our society. We no longer use the "for-profit" motive as rationale for the existence of developing a product or service.
Instead we use "improving the quality of life" for all citizens and our communities as the rationale for production and the distribution of services. We eliminate, or reduce drastically the defense budget, all overseas bases, end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, phase out our nuclear power plants, shut down our for-profit corporations, the 1600 private insurance agencies, the intelligence agencies, the homeland security agency, etc that taxes our economy and annual budgets. We free up billions of dollars for the development of mass transportation systems, small farms in the rural areas, schools, more medical facilities and providers to adequately serve the 305 million Americans, end the wars, and downsize our military and their subsequent expenses.
We radically transform our society from a military-industrial economy, based on wars and defense contracts, to a more social society to promote more leisure time, shorter work weeks, longer vacations, child care, etc. We salary our physicians and medical providers, own the hospitals and clinics, and free up 30% of the health care dollars that traditionally went to private companies in the form of profits, administration, paper work, advertising, etc.
We will retrain all defense industry people to learn how to develop and produce social products and services that benefit the society and the common good.
Your platform stated that you would "Nationalize Oil Industry, Pharmaceutical Industry, Banking and Insurance Industry, Railroad and Automotive Industries, and Entertainment and Sports Industries". How do you feel this would benefit the country?
Brian Moore: As mentioned in the previous answer, we would free up and re-distribute the profits and availability of new dollars for products and services that better benefit the community and the general welfare. Right now those "extra" dollars are kept in the pockets and bank accounts of 5% of the nation, the business leaders, who control the power a nd wealth and abuse the rights of 95% of the population by underpaying them, depriving them of full access to health care, pensions, time off, social services for their family, plus not to speak of the harm these for-profit companies have down to our natural resources for the profit motive. They have violated our waters, our land and our air, to their selfish ends, that many times ends up in perennial wars to protect their economic interests at the expense of peoples' welfare.
How do you respond to critics who claims that "income sharing reduces individual incentives to work, and therefore incomes should be individualized as much as possible"?
Brian Moore: To the contrary, workers have a greater incentive to work in order to make MORE money, plus improve their families' and the society's well-being. In addition, they participate in setting criteria, determining the production and distribution of the products and services, and thus participate in such a democratic fashion that they feel a part of the outcome. They now,for the first time, like owners, take pride in their work, because they are the real owners. They can see the result of their labors, and know they had a full participatory role.
Furthermore, the workers will be the judges of their co-workers, and citizens in their society who have handicaps and limitations. Usually, juries and co-workers are harder on themselves. So anyone who abuses the system, will suffer the consequences.
How do you respond to people that say Socialists just want to punish those who are successful by taking their money away and giving it to others?
Brian Moore: Socialists want a more egalitarian society where everyone is given an equal opportunity to live a quality life and to fulfill their aspirations. We also believe that citizens have an obligation to the common good and the general welfare of society, and that we should share our benefits with our fellow citizens, within reason.
We are still willing to have managers, administrators and CEO's of companies and institutions make more money per their responsibilities, but we wish to cap the ratio of 5 to 1, or, at the most, 10 to 1. However, now in our society we have small groups of people who inherit the wealth and the power, and make in excess of 100 to 1 or even 1,000 to 1 compared to their workers. This is pure greed, selfishness, and undemocratic.
If people do not uphold their end of the bargain in a socialist society, they will not be given a free ride. They, too, will suffer the consequences.
Do you think America will move closer to Socialism any time in the future?
Brian Moore: Yes, we are now. Look at the bailout, the automotive industries, the teetering economy under capitalism, putting us on the verge of collapse. In addition, we have social security, public transportation, public schools, Medicare, Veterans Administration services, etc, which are elements of socialism in our society.
If the economy collapses, we will have a watershed toward socialism. We just have to have the infrastructure ready.
What are your views on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Brian Moore: We should pull out of both countries immediately. I would give them no more than three months for the three major tribes to assemble, knock out a constitution, hold a vote, and take office. We should not only pull out all of our troops from both countries, but also shut down the military bases, the private reconstruction contractors, and bring them home as well.
We should pursue those responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, and the other failed flight disasters, as criminals, just like we did on the Lockerbie incident in Scotland.
Those responsible should be pursued and prosecuted as criminals, instead of declaring a war on terrorism, and going after entire countries or cultures.
Do you feel that America will move closer to conflict with Iran? If so, what are your views on that potential conflict?
Brian Moore: Not if I have anything to say about it. We should withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and begin to offer Nuclear Disarmament treaties to every country who possesses them, in order to begin an immediate and comprehensive phase out of all nuclear weapons.
If we are unwilling to disarm, then Iran should be entitled to commercial development of nuclear power, just as we do, and the nearby Pakistanis, Indians, and Israelis have now as well.
There is absolutely no reason for the United States of America to even come close to a potential war with Iran. They have no military to speak of comparable to ours, and we can monitor, if not cease the nuclear development if we take the leadership in disarming our own nation.
In 2006, you ran as a Green Party-endorsed Independent candidate for Bill Nelson's Florida Senate seat. Were you an advocate of Socialism at this time already or did that come later?
Brian Moore: I was a closet Socialist, without knowing it. I supported a socialized health care system nationwide, a guaranteed income for all citizens, a sharing of the authority between the corporate owners and the workers; and the cessation of the initiation and the actual invasion of Iraq.
However, I really did not become a strong advocate of the Socialism until about 18 months ago, and it has grown monthly, as I become more immersed in the socialist culture, mindset, and campaigns.
Another aspect to keep in mind is that I was brought up in a Irish-Catholic family, where we were taught about right and wrong, justice and fairness, and the importance of one adhering to their principles. I also entered the Franciscan seminary to study to become a priest in an Order dedicated to the cause of correcting poverty in the world. To help the downtrodden, the poor, and the huddled masses.
I also entered the U.S. Peace Corps and became knowledgeable and familiar with worldwide poverty and destitution, and the inequities of our society, and of our own unfair foreign policies and economic practices.
I have read that you were nominated by the Mississippi Natural Law Party for President in August of 2008. You also ran for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination which ultimately went to Ralph Nader. Were you already running on the Socialist Party USA ticket at this time? If so, were you simply trying to amass a larger political base by pursuing the other nominations as well?
Brian Moore: Yes, I was. That is correct, I was attempting to obtain a larger political base in order to attract media and press attention and to become a known entity with as many states as possible.
You received 6,563 votes in the 2008 Presidential election. Knowing that this election had people riveted between Barack Obama and John McCain, did you feel that any third party candidates had a chance to garner any appreciable amount of votes?
Brian Moore: I suspected early on, because of the Obama phenomenon, the fear of a Republican winning, and the negative experience of Nader in the 2000 election, that people had the "spoiler" situation on their minds.
On the other hand, I felt that the country was not happy with the choices that they had; an untested, relatively unknown candidate, who was also black for the first time; plus, a more conservative, more elderly candidate whose changing loyalties to the issues, caused confusion in the minds of the voters.
Sine we were official "write-in" candidates in 22 states, we also believe we will garner additional votes, and possibly put us over the 8.000 to 8,000 vote range.
However, all third-party candidates, to my knowledge, or their parities, received substantially less votes than in the previous two or three elections. Nader, McKinney with the Greens, Barr with the Libertarians, Baldwin with the Constitution Party, etc. all received from one-fourth to one-eight the votes they had received in previous elections.
Do you have an opinion about anything specific that may have hampered the success of your campaign?
Brian Moore: Lack of money, resources, unsupported by my political party and members, and their failure to assist us in petitioning and signature collection In approximately 5 to 10 other states where we could have gained ballot access.
Secondly, the press and media blackout, mostly, and its concentration on just the two major party candidates. The debates without third-party candidates, etc.
And the nasty image of socialism in our country, reinforced by the red-baiting and fear-mongering of John McCain and Sarah Palin; plus all the political pundits referred to socialism as negative, wrong, communist, unpatriotic, unrealistic, and unacceptable.
Was there anything about your campaign that you would consider a disappointment? Is there anything you achieved that you didn't foresee?
Brian Moore: Yes, I was very disappointed in the press and media's continued blackout of minor party candidates; and other minor party or independent candidates not including us in their requests to participate in presidential debates, or include us in their criticism of not being included in the national debates that only included the two major candidates.
I was also disappointed that the press and media's concept of "socialism" is still in the past. They have contributed to and reinforced their biases and false images of the socialist philosophy and economic system, and of the Socialist Party. The fourth estate falsely equates the SP with big government and the sharing of personal possessions and property.
Our campaign also expected more national support from the Socialist Party and membership as well as the collection of signatures for ballot qualification from the membership in individual states.
Do you have any intention of running for office again? If so, what office would you be pursuing?
Brian Moore: Who knows. We need to assess the results of this election, since the votes are still coming in. We just gained 910 write-in votes from Texas today, so we are now around 7,610 total votes. We hope to reach the 10,000 vote mark when all the write-in votes come in by late December or January, 2009.
We want to promote socialism, and we also believe that the capitalist system is on the brink of collapse, so I would say more focus will be more on setting up some concrete plans for a sudden transformation to socialism, and to continue to promote the new image of socialism, and educate the public about its rich heritage in our country.
While congressional and a U.S. Senate races are coming up in my home state of Florida in 23 months, I have more of an interest in building the locals in Florida and nationally, and also educating myself about socialism is other parts of the world, especially on the partial successes in the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries.
Your campaign bio has an impressive list of civic involvement. Is there anything specifically you feel particularly proud of achieving?
Brian Moore: In Washington, DC I helped bring heating oil to low income minorities in the inner city over several cold winters; the city of Wash. DC erected fence barriers with roofs, over all the freeway overpasses as a safety measure for pedestrians and children on bikes due to my initial letters to the DC government about one such bridge across the street from the HUD building on 7th & E Streets, SW. Multiple bridge overpass fences throughout the city were implemented soon thereafter.
I lobbied against the construction of an International trade center for Union station, with my writing letters-to-the-editors, personal editorials and guest columns, resulting in the project's stoppage for Union Station. In its place there is now a highly successful Union Station store and shopping and restaurant center.
I then followed up with organizing my neighborhood in the southwest section of DC to fight the construction of the International Trade Center on the southwest DC waterfront. We ultimately won, after several years of meetings and demonstrations, and the new International Trade Center, called the Ronald Reagan Building, was moved to 14th and Pennsylvania Ave, NW, and constructed there.
This was a great environmental achievement on the part of our neighborhood in protecting our neighborhood identity and environment, which I lead and we succeeded in.
What is your opinion on the passage of Proposition 8 in California and the various protests that have followed its passage?
Brian Moore: I favor the recognition that marriages between same-sex partners are legitimate and should be recognized and treated as such.
Thank you very much for your time and I wish you luck in any future political endeavors.
Brian Moore Interviewed on Sacramento Public Radio
Brian to be Interviewed Live on Sacramento Public Radio Station KVMR, 89.5 FM, Tonight, 7:30 PM PST
Brian will be interviewed on the public community radio station in the Sacramento greater regional area with 40,000 listeners nightly.
Brian Bahouth, the Radio News Director, will conduct the 20 to 30 minute interview covering the recent presidential election, the struggles of third parties, and the use of "socialism" by the two major party candidates and how it impacted upon the Socialist Party's presidential candidate, Brian Moore.
How Obama survived the smears And how McCain helped him do it By Philippe Gohier Maclean's (link)
A week before Americans cast their votes, Brian Moore, the Socialist Party's nominee for the White House, was on the Colbert Report discussing Obama's candidacy. "He's a [capitalist]," Moore complained of his Democratic rival. "His party is a capitalist party and he's propping up the capitalist system with the bailout." Communists, socialists and the rest of the normally splintered far left all seemed to agree: Obama is not one us. John McCain and Sarah Palin, however, had come to a vastly different conclusion. While McCain was describing Obama as America's "redistributionist in chief", Palin was warning voters "now is not the time to experiment with socialism." Republicans had spent the entire campaign trying to pin a label on the Illinois senator. Obama's reluctance to wear a flag pin on his lapel left him open to charges of unpatriotism; the outbursts of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, coupled with unfounded rumours about Michelle Obama's supposedly racist thesis on race relations had others accusing him of ties to black nationalist movements; his middle name (Hussein) and his early education in Indonesia were often trotted out as evidence he is (or once was) a closet Muslim; and finally, as if being described as a toxic combination of Hugo Chavez and Louis Farrakhan weren't enough, Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers had Palin accusing him of "palling around with terrorists."
None of the accusations were true. What's odd, however, is that none of them stuck. In the battle for the Republican nomination in 2000, McCain's first bid for the White House was partly scuttled by a whispering campaign painting his adopted Bangladeshi daughter as an illegitimate love-child. In 1988, the GOP relied heavily on a controversial ad that grossly exaggerated Michael Dukakis's role in the release of prisoners on weekend passes to win the White House. And in the 2004 presidential race, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were so successful in undermining John Kerry's military record that the group's name was eventually transformed into a verb synonymous with attacks that are as dishonest as they are well-orchestrated.
Going negative, as general rule, is an effective strategy. A study conducted in final weeks of the 2004 presidential election found negative ads caused 14 per cent of viewers to change their minds about their favoured candidate. Positive ads, on the other hand, led only five per cent of viewers to adopt a more favourable view of the candidate they oppose. Given the tone of recent presidential races, one of the great successes of the Obama campaign may very well have been its ability to avoid the smear. "Obama, quite skillfully and with enormous discipline from the beginning, set up a counter-narrative that he was the person who rose above the pettiness of contemporary politics," says Rick Perlstein, author of Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. "By the end, smears did a more effective job of defining the Republicans." But Obama's compelling image as the man-above-the-fray may not have been enough on its own.
Obama was, after all, only slightly less prone to negative campaigning. Research by the Wisconsin Advertising Project found that, between June 4 and October 4, 47 per cent of McCain's ads were negative in tone compared to 39 per cent of Obama's. However, one of McCain's crucial missteps may have been his inability to distance himself from the smears. "In 2004, the Bush campaign was really adamant about not having any association at all with the Swift Boat people," says Farhad Manjoo, author of True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society. "They even made calls on them to stop their campaign. Joe the Plumber is part of the McCain campaign, he is touring with them. He hasn't been kept at arm's length. He is saying outrageous things, but he's part of their campaign apparatus." Whereas Obama could rely on sympathetic bloggers and other supporters from outside his campaign to undermine the Republicans, McCain was more closely involved in his campaign's aggressive courtship of the G.O.P.'s skeptical base.
The perceived radicalization of the McCain campaign went a long way to stoking a long-dormant censorious streak among the country's chattering class. At one point, Time magazine's Joe Klein described McCain's ad accusing Obama of having supported a bill that would teach sex education to children in kindergarten as "one of the sleaziest ads I've ever seen in presidential politics." Even Karl Rove, the man most closely associated with the vicious politicking that's become commonplace in races south of the border, would eventually get into the act, accusing McCain of having "gone one step too far" in his attacks against Obama. Although McCain's wife Cindy attempted to deflect the criticism by accusing the Democrats of running "the dirtiest campaign in American history," her rebuke was quickly dismissed.
Successful presidential campaigns in the U.S. had, until now, become defined by attacks. It might be tempting to view Obama's victory as an epitaph for political smear campaigns, but they're unlikely to disappear from the political landscape; like hyperbolic promises, "contrast ads" that stretch the truth -- or invent it -- are as entrenched as any campaign tactic. But by relying on a stirring backstory and driving McCain to the Republicans' angry margins, Obama has effectively handed future political hopefuls a gameplan on how to defeat them.
Moore-Alexander make Los Angeles Times on eve of election
Brian Moore, the Socialist candidate for president, is more popular than ever By James Rainey Los Angeles Times (link)
Campaign 2008 has been a fierce fame-making machine, albeit for notoriety that can be most fleeting.
Yet Brian Moore, the Socialist candidate for president of the United States of America and the latest to bask in the media glow, has seen his 15 minutes stretch on for a couple of weeks. And he's hoping for quite a bit more. It all started a couple of weeks ago, when the Republican ticket began to paint Barack Obama as a "socialist" and the "redistributor in chief," after the Democrat made his now famous remark to Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher about "spreading the wealth around."
That created an opening for Moore of Spring Hill, Fla., who finds the Republicans lacking in credibility and Obama badly wanting when it comes the true collectivist spirit. The former HMO executive and Socialist Party USA presidential nominee has been in nearly constant demand in recent days.
On Monday, he was giving yet another radio interview, this one to a station in St. Louis. He earlier had been featured by the Chicago Tribune, Fox News, St. Petersburg Times, the Nation and the New Republic, to name just a few.
The 65-year-old physical fitness fanatic’s biggest splash came last week on "The Colbert Report." Host Stephen Colbert greeted him as "Comrade Moore," and when the obscure candidate insisted Obama was not a socialist, Colbert retorted, "What do you mean, he wants to redistribute the wealth. That makes him a pinko, right?"
Moore . . ..
. . . . chuckled.
He explained in an interview with The Times that true socialism would require a more dramatic change, one that would not require big government but would put workers in charge of the nation’s wealth.
"Citizens can then share in the profits and redistribute the profits from a military economy into a social service and infrastructure economy," Moore said.
The Socialists -- Moore and running mate Stewart Alexander, a Riverside car dealer -- said they will appear on the ballot in eight states, including Florida and Ohio, but not California.
Moore dropped out of seminary as a young man. He joined the Peace Corps. After working in the health industry he said he helped nonprofits bring healthcare to Latin America.
He said he regularly swims and plays pickup basketball and has never smoked, leading him to speculate that he is "healthier than Obama is."
Moore described the Republicans and Democrats as being inextricably linked to corporate America, like "tweedledee and tweedledum," and predicted that the economic crisis would finally open Americans to another way.
"To me it’s a watershed," Moore said. "It’s opened up the eyes of America of the weaknesses of capitalism. There has never been so much publicity about socialism in the last 70 years.”
Chicago Tribune article on Socialist Party Presidential Candidate Brian Moore
Obama's a capitalist says top socialist By Frank James Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau (link)
Brian Moore knows socialists. Socialists are friends of his. And he says that Sen. Barack Obama is no socialist.
And Moore should know since he's the Socialist Party candidate for president. Moore was on C-Span's Washington Journal program yesterday when he was asked by a caller whether Obama was a socialist, a political philosophy the Democratic presidential nominee has been tagged with by Sen. John McCain because of the Illinois Democrat's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher.
Moore's answer:
First of all, Mr. Obama is not a socialist, he's a capitalist and a capitalist in the bad sense. He's received $25 million from contributions from Wall St. He's embraced the bailout, voted and supported the bailout. He's supporting a health-care system that would turn over authority back to the private insurance companies."
He's going to increase the military in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran and the military bases in Iraq. in no way is this man a socialist.
He's tinkering with capitalism. He's a mild reformer. He wants to reform the system instead of radically changing it. Remember now, the Democrats since 1948 have been advocating a universal health plan since Harry Truman. For 40 years they were in power in Congress and did nothing. They're not going to do anything now. And I feel Mr. Obama's going to be all words and promises and four years from now there's going to be a huge disappointed electorate, especially the young people in this country will be so disillusioned with the leadership under the Democrats because of their promises and empty words.
The Obama campaign may want to buy up some TV airtime and give it to Moore so that he can bash Obama for being a capitalist and no socialist. Just a thought.
On Friday, 31 October, C-SPAN held a thirty-minute interview with Socialist Party Presidential Candidate Brian Moore. The interview is now online and can be found here.
Chicago Tribune article on Socialist Party and presidential campaign
Socialist Party fights to maintain identity By Laura Olson Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau (link)
There is a Socialist candidate on the ballot in eight states, and it's not Barack Obama.
His name is Brian Moore, resident of Spring Hill, Fla., whose resume includes training at a Franciscan seminary, a stint in the Peace Corps and work in health-care consulting. He's also a stay-at-home dad and a civil war re-enactor.
On his campaign site, Moore, 65, tells voters that "he comes from a working class background, of modest economic means, has worked in factories, is an all-around athlete and has protested wars and Wal-Mart salary levels in public demonstrations."
Top issues for the Socialist Party ticket, which also include vice presidential nominee Stewart Alexander, are developing renewable energy, creating a national health care plan, withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, ensuring civil liberties ... and implementing worker control of industry and financial institutions.
The ticket has qualified for write-in status in 14 states in addition to the eight states that will specifically list Moore and Alexander.
In a Q-and-A with The New Republic reporter Kathleen Marsh and again on Tuesday's Colbert Report, Moore denies that Obama follows any Socialist principles. "His party is a capitalist party. They voted for the bailout," he said. "They're both capitalist parties."
Instead, the Socialist Party, according to his campaign site, "strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control -- a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist society in which people cooperate at work, at home, and in the community."
It also mentions an environmentalist side: "Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth."
There is one area, though, where the party's candidates don't seem that different from Obama or McCain. The ticket is made up of an older white man (Moore) and a black man (Alexander).
Sounds like a compromise ticket for those still undecided.
United Socialist States of America By Christopher Hayes The Nation (link)
Last night Stephen Colbert quite cleverly invited the actual Socialist candidate for President onto his show, to give him the opportunity to state the blindingly obvious: Obama's no Socialist. (Added bonus was hearing a real, actual socialist explain his philosophy on national television. That doesn't happen very often) The McCainFoxDrudge campaign's decision to focus the last few weeks of the election on the combined spectre of redistribution and socialism (not, it should be noted, the same thing) is, I think, really dumb.
First, it's not working. A new Wall Street Journal poll shows likely voters favor Obama over McCain on tax policy by 14 points. Part of that is no doubt due to Obama's near obsessive focus on hammering home his proposal for middle class tax cuts, but it also seems entirely possible that a broad majority of Americans think that "spreading the wealth" isn't such a bad idea right about now.
Second, they're creating a mandate that Obama didn't formerly have. David Sirota put it this way:
[W]hile Obama has offered up a progressive-though-moderate agenda slightly to the left of Clinton-ish neoliberalism, McCain has gone totally ideological. In doing that, he has polarized the argument and turned the election into a referendum on the economic Darwinism of the conservative movement - a Darwinism that, as my column shows, has built a machine that confiscates middle-class wealth and sends it up the income ladder.
And Marc Ambinder recently noticed the same thing:
...it might be dangerous for the Republican Party to elevate the stakes for this election to a death match between competing ideologies. If Barack Obama's victory is as decisive as it is shaping up to be, the Democrats can justifiably claim that conservatism itself has been rejected as a political and governing philosophy. In the closing weeks of the campaign, as the Republican ticket continues to run against the very idea of progressive politics, they are sowing the seeds of the post-election realignment narrative.
I think this is exactly right, and not just because I think it's transparently moronic to argue that the difference between Capitalism and Socialism is the difference between a 35 percent top marginal tax rate and a 39.5 percent one. Obama himself, while he does weave in an ideological story into his main narrative, he tends, instead to offer himself as post-ideological and pragmatic. The Right, meanwhile, has turned this election into a referendum on Socialism.
Socialist Party Presidential Candidate Brian Moore appeared on Comedy Central's Colbert Report on Tuesday, 28 October, to discuss socialism and his campaign. You can watch the interview online here.
Tampa Tribune covers Brian's appearance on the Colbert Report
Spring Hill's Presidential Candidate Hits Comedy Central Tonight By Tony Marrero Tampa Tribune, Hernando Today edition (link)
BROOKSVILLE -- Brian Moore, the presidential candidate from Spring Hill out to prove that socialism isn't a dirty word, is slated today to face what could prove to be his toughest interviewer yet: Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert.
Moore will appear on The Colbert Report tonight to talk about his candidacy at the top of the Socialist Party ticket. The show airs at 11:30 p.m. and the episode will air again Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. and 2:30 and 7:30 p.m. Colbert satirizes the talking heads of the cable news networks, with a shtick that takes conservatism to outrageous extremes. The result: Guests with a liberal slant get skewered.
Moore said he's preparing to be mocked.
"But I feel comfortable with that, because we're used to it," a laughing Moore said Monday morning before he left his home on Hunter's Lake, bound for Tampa International Airport. He caught a 5 p.m. flight to New York City, where the show is taped. "I think I can turn the tables and mock capitalism."
Actually, capitalism's apparent failing have caused the word "socialism" to turn up in lots of the nation's dialogue ¿ and presidential campaign rhetoric ¿ in recent weeks and likely prompted Moore's invitation to one of the highest-rated shows on cable. The media is more interested in the Socialist Party and is dialing Moore's number more often, giving the tiny minor party the kind of publicity it couldn't hope to pay for.
Many have used the term "socialism" to describe the government bailout of the financial industry, and that will be an easy mark during his appearance, Moore said.
Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain started using the word to describe the tax policies of Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama. Obama didn't help matters when he said during a debate the nation needs to "spread the wealth around."
Socialism is indeed about sharing wealth, Moore said, but contends that the two candidates are smearing socialism and "misleading the public" by co-opting the term for their own "fear-mongering" political purposes.
The socialist platform, in essence, would have ownership and control of corporations transfer to the workers, eliminating the few "robber barons" that make millions on the backs of many, Moore said. The party opposed the financial plan because essentially, he said, "it's putting the fox in the henhouse." Socialists would do away with the faulty financial institutions altogether, Moore said.
Moore has been a guest on national radio programs and has been featured in pieces in The Nation, The New Republic and National Journal. He recently took questions from Al Jazeera, the Arabic news network. Moore says that appearance reached more than 100 million viewers worldwide.
Moore has appeared three times ¿ and as recently as last week ¿ on Your World, the Fox News business show hosted by Neil Cavuto. Moore said a Colbert Report producer told him that Colbert saw the appearance and wanted to have Moore on his show.
A Comedy Central spokeswoman said the network would not comment on what motivates requests for guests.
Moore, a 64-year-old former health care executive recruiter, is relatively well-known in Hernando County as founder and chairman of the Nature Coast Coalition for Peace and Justice. The group organizes the anti-war rallies at some of the county's busiest intersections. He's also made several bids for public office. He earned the Socialist Party USA's nomination at its national convention in St. Louis last October, beating out four other hopefuls.
Since then, he's worked with the party to get on ballots in as many states as possible. So far, he's made it onto just eight: Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey, Colorado, Vermont and Iowa.
He acknowledged that there's no way he can be president unless something "cataclysmic" happens and the socialists suddenly get a lot more converts. His candidacy, Moore said, is more about educating the public about the party's roots as the source of child labor laws, Social Security and the 40-hour work week.
It's the case he'll try to make in the court of Colbert: "We're now coming into our own again."
If you watch: Brian Moore, a Spring Hill resident and the Socialist Party's presidential candidate, will appear on Comedy Central's The Colbert Report at 11:30 p.m. tonight. The episode re-airs Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. and 2:30 and 7:30 p.m.
Reporter Tony Marrero can be reached at 352-544-5286 or lmarrero (at) hernandotoday (dot) com.
Brian will appear tonight on the Comedy Central show The Colbert Report, which begins at 11:30 pm EST. Brian was flown out to New York by Comedy Central for today's taping and airing of the show.
While in New York for tonight's Colbert Report episode, Brian will also be doing an hour long interview by telephone on the "Fight Back with Dr. Bob Fitrakis" radio show on WVKO 1580AM -- Ohio's Progressive Talk, beginning at 5 pm.
Obama is a Socialist? Another "Known-Unknown" By William Wharton Dissident Voice (link)
Ever desperate, John McCain has lately taken up an attempt to re-brand Barack Obama from blue to red. Obama, it seems, is a stealth "socialist." Or, so says Sarah Palin, or Joe the Plumber, or John McCain, or was that Bill O'Reilly? Remember now we are talking about a political crowd dedicated to "preemptive war" - they know something when they do not see it. Or, as Don Rumsfeld so eloquently termed it, Barack Obama being a socialist is a "known unknown."
Unfortunately for the McCain campaign, a large chunk of the American electorate, despite eight years of presidential idiocy, has managed to retain some amount of rational reasoning. By any reasonable measure Obama is far from a socialist. Let's look at three. Healthcare
In his Chicago days, Obama was close to a socialist position on the issue of healthcare. He was an early supporter of House Resolution 676, a bill introduced by Representative John Conyers which would create a single-payer national healthcare system. This bill would effectively eliminate the private health insurance industry. While many socialists support this proposal, we also call for a fully socialized healthcare system where both the healthcare program and facilities are publicly owned.
Obama the presidential candidate has slid far from his earlier position. The wheels for this move were greased by nearly $12 million in campaign contributions from the healthcare industry. He now advocates a pro-business reform for the healthcare industry which offers meager public support while unlocking untapped market sources through a system of child-insurance mandates.
War & Peace
Socialists rightly emphasize the military industrial complex and the social philosophy of militarism as important drains on public funds and the national psyche. The US spends an estimated $1.4 trillion on the military through expenditures on current and past military campaigns. This amounts to 54% of the entire public budget. US military spending is equal to the sum total of the next 15 countries combined.
Obama has offered little on this subject. He has made an blanket claim to end the occupation of Iraq but has simultaneously offered overtures about increased military activity in Afghanistan. This has been coupled with irresponsible comments about aggression towards Pakistan. Conversely, Socialist Party USA presidential candidate Brian Moore has not only pledged to immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan but also to make a 50% cut in the military budget. Obama has offered no similar proposals.
Economy
Obama's economic package has vacillated between a continuation of the Clinton regime where fiscal policy was run by the Wall Street bankers and wholly insufficient stimulus proposals. The Clinton-style lower taxes, balanced fiscal budget and cuts in social services is wildly out of touch with an economy desperate for stimulus to prevent a total free-fall. On the other hand, moderate liberal proposals such as simply reversing Bush's tax cuts for the rich and offering minor tweaks to spending just will not cut it.
If socialists understand anything economically it is how to deal with capitalist-created recessions. The state must become an engine for economic stimulus to revive an increasingly dormant economy. This can be partially achieved by state-guarantees of necessary items such as healthcare, water, education and housing. A far more complex challenge comes from the need to rebuilding productive capacity in the US. This can be done in democratic and green ways through socialist-based worker-cooperatives teamed with strategic nationalizations. Do not expect Obama - as either candidate or president - to embrace such radical, yet increasingly necessary, ideas.
So, we see that in the land of "knowns" Obama is far from a socialist. On a good day he is a mild liberal reformer but on most he is closer to a Clinton corporate-directed centrist. This will not prevent the McCain-Palin crew from conducting their best Senator McCarthy routine. This has been a tried and true part of American politics. However, this year there may be a few road bumps. We are four generations removed from McCarthyism. There is also no Soviet Union to poke fun at. And finally, and most importantly, America needs a socialist peace plan, a socialist healthcare plan and a socialist economic stimulus plan. Such things are available but will not be delivered by Barack Obama.
The fourth party candidates By Igor Derysh The Examiner (link)
It is almost ironic that when journalists and columnists, and I must admit I too am guilty of this, mention the lack of coverage that third party candidates like Independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr receive while in the same breath forgetting to mention the other third party candidates that are out there. Here are the other candidates that are likely to appear on your state's ballot on November 4 and what they bring to the table. Because are are just too many to discuss, this list will feature candidates who appear on the ballot in ten or more states in order of how many states they appear, including write-in options. Cynthia McKinney (Green Party, 48 states and Washington D.C.): McKinney is a former Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia. McKinney served in the United States House of Representatives from 1993 until 2007. McKinney is perhaps best known for her ties to conspiracy theorists who question aspects of the 9/11 attacks and the murder of Martin Luther King Jr and introducing articles of impeachment for many in the administration. McKinney supports voting reform, abolition of the Patriot Act and similar programs, campaign finance reform, creating millions of new jobs, raising the minimum wage, repealing NAFTA and similar programs, pro-immigrant illegal immigration reform, reparations for African-Americans, increasing education spending drastically, cutting the military budget drastically and tax reform.
Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party, 45 states and Washington D.C.): Baldwin is a pastor, radio-host and former Republican from Florida. Baldwin was a major critic of George Bush in the 2000 campaign and dropped out of the Republican party when Bush was nominated. Baldwin is a Ron Paul endorsed conservative libertarian. His plaform is entirely against the income tax, the war in Iraq, illegal immigration, the United Nations, NATO, NAFTA and the Patriot Act while supporting the ten commandments first and the Constitution second as the law of the land.
Brian Moore (Socialist Party, 22 states): Moore is a former Democratic politician from Florida. Moore supports promoting renewable energy to replace fossil fuels, creating more effective agricultural and health care plans, replace private ownership with community ownership and "worker control of industry and financial institutions," redistributing wealth and attempting to curb poverty throughout the world, withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, abolishing the Patriot Act and similar programs and promotion of art programs.
Gloria La Riva (Socialism and Liberation Party, 12 states): Riva is a politician from New Mexico that is running for President or Vice-President for the sixth time. La Riva supports withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq, ending all United States' sanctions, promote the cause of the Palestinian people, releasing Puerto Rico from American rule, 100% employment, raising minimum wage to $15 per hour, free healthcare, free college tuition for everyone, full rights for illegal immigrants and gay marriage.
Roger Calero (Socialist Workers Party, 10 states): Calero is a journalist and politician from New Jersey by way of Nicaragua. Calero shares a similar platform as the two socialist candidates above. Because he was not born in the United States, he will be replaced by Socialist James Harris in some states that he has qualified in.
The TNR Q&A: Brian Moore By Katherine Marsh The New Republic (link)
Barack Obama and John McCain have been called socialists for their support of the bailout. But Moore, the Socialist Party USA's presidential nominee, really is one, and his feelings are hurt.
With all the accusations of socialism flying around, it seemed like a good time to check in with Brian Moore, the Socialist Party USA presidential nominee. As Moore himself observed, socialism has been in the news more in the past few weeks "than anytime since 1932." Over the course of two recent afternoons, I conducted a hard-hitting phone interview with the 65-year-old candidate who spoke to me from his home in Tampa, Florida, and from the Fox News green room, where he was preparing to tape one of his recent Neil Cavuto interviews. What follows is a condensed version of our conversations. The New Republic: You've appeared twice over the past month on Fox News. Wouldn't it be more socialist to appear on a viewer-funded station like PBS?
By all means! But Fox is the only one that's offered. You know why I went to Cuba [in 2006]? Because NPR sponsored a debate between Bill Nelson and Katherine Harris. I said, "Wait a minute, I'm a candidate, why can't I participate?" I decided I'd go to Cuba and get my freedom of press there. I held a press conference. CBS and the AP covered it. Ralph Nader loves that story. He talks about it to this day.
Well, on Fox, Neil Cavuto has leveled some really nasty charges against you and your organization. How does it feel to be called Swedish?
Ironically, a few days before the interview, the head of the new left national party in Sweden endorsed me.
So Cavuto really called you out?
He was right on!
Are you distressed that the word "socialist" is being taken away from you and your party, and that the big, capitalist parties are now being called socialists, too?
Well, of course. It's just not true. Barack Obama is not a socialist. His party is a capitalist party. They voted for the bailout. They're both capitalist parties.
Do you think socialism is going to become less of a dirty word over the course of the recession/depression?
Yes. This is a watershed moment. There will be systemic change because of the collapse of capitalism. My job is to remind the public of the rich tradition that socialism has--the 40 hour work week, women's rights. We were stung temporarily by the Cold War and Stalinism, but we need to get back in the mindset of educating people that it's okay to be a socialist.
You need to start with Neil Cavuto.
I think he's moving. During my last interview, he said, "Brian, I think you're right. The ship has sailed."
Let's talk about pie. Obama wants to divide it into smaller slices, McCain wants to grow it. What is the socialist party's view on pie?
If I understand your question correctly, it's the redistribution of wealth. Let everyone share in the wealth.
How much pie would Joe the Plumber get under your system?
Joe the Plumber will benefit by having his own company, but he would have to make sure that he'd make no more than a five-to-one ratio over his workers. If Joe wants $250,000, he'll have to pay his employees a minimum of $50,000.
The socialist presidential ticket combines an older white guy and a black guy (Stewart Alexander for veep). Would you say your ticket offers the best of both John McCain and Barack Obama?
Why not! I'm 65 going on 40. I'm a jock. I played three sports in college. I swam this morning--we have a pool. I play on a baseball team--hardball, hardball--I play with all these kids in their 20s.
So you'd say you're more hale and hearty than John McCain?
I'm more hale and hearty than Barack Obama! He smokes. I've never touched a cigarette. Compare me to Barack. I will not concede youth.
Your vice presidential pick Stewart Alexander versus Sarah Palin. On experience and charisma, who wins in a debate and why?
Sarah Palin has charisma. But Stewart is a very friendly guy and articulate when it comes to socialism. He's politically more experienced than her. She's had administrative jobs, but he's been an entrepreneur his whole life. He sells cars, has his own radio program, things of that nature.
Barack Obama says we should stop thinking of ourselves as red and blue America, but as one America. What color do you think that America should think of itself as?
Purple sounds pretty good. It combines brown, reds, blacks, and whites. You need a color with some kind of darkness to it. Hunter green?
Barack Obama raised a record $150 million in campaign contributions in September. How should he spend that money?
Campaigning around the country is really expensive. I spent $1,000 to attend the alternative candidate debate in Tennessee and to protest outside Belmont University. I have $25,000 for my campaign. He wants to share the wealth, right?
What kind of first lady would your wife, Peggy, make?
She'd be really different. During the primary, she said if Hillary loses, she'll vote for me.
You didn't automatically get her vote?
She's very independent minded. She was a banker for 25 years.
But you're a socialist?!
She doesn't agree with me. She's a capitalist. I'm a stay at home dad. My wife works. I do a lot of work around the house.
Katherine Marsh is managing editor of The New Republic.
Spring Hill man runs for president By Kathryn Bursch 10 Connects News (link)
Spring Hill, Florida - In the maze of political signs you see along the roadways these days, one you're unlikely to find is "Brian Moore for President." They are few and far between.
The cluttered office of Moore's Spring Hill home is headquarters for his presidential run. The long-time civic activist is the candidate for the Socialist Party USA. "We can offer a viable alternative," says Moore. And this candidate truly is all about change. Moore's platform is radical: end the war and nationalize industries like energy, healthcare and banking. During a radio interview, this is how Moore describes the nation's current economic system: "Capitalism is based on the profit motive and money and greed."
With a budget that can barely buy buttons, Moore often spreads the word one on one. Still, his name is on the ballot in eight states, including Florida. And even without a win, Moore finds value in giving voters a choice.
"It allows them to vote their principals and not compromise them and hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils," says Moore.
After the election, Moore says he'll trade in his political signs and once again take up his anti-war ones. His garage has scads of them. He's coordinated local peace protests for years. Calling for change just seems to be part of Moore's makeup.
For more information on Moore and his campaign click here.
