Third Party Coverage for Presidential Election 2012: Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) - Peta Lindsay and Yari Osorio

PSL hopes to continue the struggle
against the capitalist system in 2012.

The next part in our coverage of third-party candidates in the 2012 Presidential Election. I anticipate reposting and updating this closer to the election, as it is still almost 11 months away. This is not intended as an endorsement of any kind. Also, do not pay notice to the fact that the socialist parties are being covered first - they were simply the first to nominate somebody. Also, I apologize for the atrocious formatting. Blogger's being annoying. 

Party: Party for Socialism and Liberation

Presidential Nominee: Peta Lindsay*

Vice Presidential Nominee: Yari Osorio*

Election Website: http://www.votePSL.org

Ideology: Socialist/Marxist

* - Neither Lindsay nor Osorio is Constitutionally eligible to be President. Lindsay is 28 and Osorio was born in Colombia so is not a "natural-born US citizen". This is explained further below.

Response by staff member (text in bold was my questions):

Dear Gregory


You could consider posting what we have on our site at http://www.votePSL.prg which will have the most up to date information on our campaign.

I am inserting some excerpts from the website below so you can get a better idea

The PSL is a revolutionary Marxist party in the United States that struggles for socialism. We want a revolution; and, we work hard to make it happen.
The PSL is involved in struggles—both large and small—that affect the U.S. working class. From the Occupy movement to the anti-war movement and the fight for immigrant rights; from struggles for affordable housing and health care to combating racist police brutality; from the movement for women’s rights and LGBT equality to labor and union struggles—the PSL is at the forefront of the class struggle against the capitalists and their rotten system.

Peta Lindsay will be the Presidential
nominee.

We are comprised of militant, working-class organizers and leaders dedicated to advancing the struggle for workers’ power.

Our party knows that revolution is necessary. We fight for reforms that ease the burden on workers and oppressed people, but ultimately reforms are not enough. We know that revolutions are made in the streets, in the factories and other workplaces, and in the military units when workers—in and out of uniform—become conscious that the power of the capitalist bosses and the generals must be replaced with the power of the people. This is the message that the PSL will bring through its intervention in the 2012 elections.

The U.S. electoral system is reflective of a capitalist plutocracy. We live under a government of, by and for the wealthy. These politicians—from President Obama to Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and on down the line—are fully beholden to their corporate backers, the 1 %. Even if they started off from humble backgrounds or espoused progressive positions earlier in their careers, not one politician will be able to become president of the United States unless they adjust their positions to that which is acceptable to the capitalist vultures and the military-industrial complex. Each one of them will embrace the goals of U.S. imperialist domination or they will be dumped unceremoniously by the Republican and Democratic parties. None of them will forward the working-class struggle.

The PSL’s 2012 campaign is meant to inspire more working-class organizing, agitation and revolutionary consciousness. We will take the ideas of socialism—a better, more just society; the way forward for humanity—to the workers and poor people in the United States. The PSL’s campaign will open a much-needed avenue for workers to wage political combat against the capitalist establishment and their corrupt representatives.

Our candidates will travel to every part of the country to spread this message.

Join the PSL’s 2012 campaign. Raise the banner of socialism. Champion the cause of the working class.

Become an advocate for people’s rights and revolutionary change.

First (and this part I am asking everyone), could you please give me a summary of your campaign and what it stands for. What are some important issues to you?

Also, since ballot access is important for third party candidates, please let me know (as best you can - best guesses are fine) what progress you have made/plan to make on ballot access.

The ruling class in the imperialist United States do everything they can to keep workers' candidates off the ballots. Those who do get on have to collect thousands of signatures using volunteers for weeks and week and even with such a noble effort it is still only possible to get on a handful of states' ballots. Most organizations that represent workers interest do not have the millions of dollars to pay to get the candidates on the ballot or the ability to spend millions in mobilizing volunteers, e.g. California alone requires hundreds of thousands of signatures to gain access for just one election.

Yari Osorio will run for VP.
He is not Constitutionaly
eligible to be President
but PSL wants to send a message
more than anything.

Neither you nor Mr. Osorio are Constitutionally eligible to be president. How will this impact ballot access?

Our candidates are selected as representatives of the struggles of working people. Our first decrees would be to offer universal healthcare for all, end landlordism, forgive all student loans, forgive mortgage payment and reverse forclosures to attain housing for all, provide citizenship to all undocumented, abolish racism, double the minium wage--these are just some examples of our program and what our candidates represent. Our campaign is one of expanding rights of working people, not a campaign of exclusion like those of the candidates of the rich. The Constitution, as you state, prohibits our candidates from running. Each state has different laws that interpret this and it will be part of the struggle for ballot access. We will, however, gain access to the states we are aiming for.

Also, what happens if you win and Speaker of the House John Boehner becomes president?

I'm not clear about this question. (see note below)

What makes you different from Stewart Alexander of Socialist Party USA? Why should we support you over him?

We run with other socialist and progressive candidates against the capitalist system. We are not running against them but with them. We will have different campaigns and views. Workers should select the candidates they feel best represents them, but our campaigns are all in the spirit of solidarity with other campaigns like the Socialist Party.

What is your view on First Amendment Rights?

Although PSL nominee Peta Lindsay
 and Socialist Party USA candidate
Stewart Alexander agree on most
issues, Lindsay would not protect
hate speech as "free", while
Alexander would.

We support individuals choice in worship if they choose to do so. The first admendment is a description of bourgeois rights--we ask right to assembly for who? We stand for the right of assembly of the Occupy movement that is being severely repressed by the cops around the country, we are for workers' rights to organize a union at the workplace. However, we are not for the rights of racists, like the Klan and the Nazis--the promotion of racism and violence would be illegal. We are also not for the bankers to hire armies to suppress people from speaking out against them.

Do you oppose all forms of censorship, no matter what? Or would you support censoring certain things, possibly including hate speech or attempts to reinstate capitalism?

I think I answered this in the previous question

President Obama has been "accused" of being a socialist. Do you feel these statements are accurate? Why or why not?

President Obama is a representative of the banks and corporations. He is th ecommander in chief of an army of occupation that is killing people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere. He is not a Socialist.

Is war ever justified? If so, when?

We are for the defense and liberation of working and oppressed people.

What do you feel is your biggest accomplishment so far in terms of politics?

In seven years our party has grown and matured in the struggle. It is an achievement to announce this campaign that will capture the attention of many working people around the country as we promote a program for true liberation through Socialism.

My notes and commentary:

Obama is just another
corrupt capitalist, according
to Lindsay and the PSL. 

• After reading the response to the first couple questions, it appears to me PSL is attempting to continue the struggle against capitalism in 2012, not win it then and there. This isn't particularly a problem for a small party. Start with baby steps, and hopefully you will eventually reach your goal.
• Also, I stand corrected with regards to John Boehner. It was my understanding that Constitutionally speaking, if neither the President-elect nor Vice President-elect were Constitutionally eligible to be President, it would pass to the Speaker of the House (Boehner). But, accordng to Article III of the 20th Amendment, "Congress shall provide by law for [such a case]". Either way, PSL doesn't seem to expect that to happen. But as I've said, if you truly support a third party candidate, you should vote for them even if they have no chance of winning. It's far better than picking the lesser evil. 
• Note the differences between Lindsay and Stewart Alexander on free speech. Recall my quote from my coverage of Mr. Alexander. "As President, even if Nazis or Klansmen protested peacefully outside the front doors of the White House for weeks on end, I would not raise a finger against them or instruct anyone else to do so." In contrast, PSL would censor these things. I personally prefer Alexander's approach, but for voters who want to see those things stopped, Lindsay is the better choice.
• I completely agree on the quote about Obama. This is why we need a third party candidate. Obama is absolutely pitiful. I can't believe I supported him at one time.
• Let's hope all third party candidates can capture America's attention, Peta. Good luck!

Jack Fellure of the Prohibition Party is the only already-nominated candidate who I haven't covered. I will mail him a letter when I get back to UConn to ensure that his response gets to the right place at the right time.

Top 10 Political Halloween Costumes of 2011

This is the second year in a row I have done this. For the first time, see this facebook page (I don't believe it requires a facebook account, but it might. You don't need to add me as af friend though).

10. "Occupy Chocolate Walnut Street" - the 1% of the "big kids" who get all the trick-or-treat candy need to learn to share with the little kids. 

9. Ron Paul - "The Constitution does not give the President the power to distribute candy to trick-or-treaters at the White House. Therefore, if elected president, I will not do so, as that can only be done by the states."

8. Social Security - Don't buy any candy to give to trick-or-treaters who come to your house. Instead, take candy from each trick-or treater who comes buy and invite them to come by later for more candy than they gave up. Proceed to give each returning trick-or-treater the candy you stole from the preceding trick-or-treaters. Eventually, you will run out of candy and an angry mob of trick-or-treaters will form outside your house and you will go down in flames.

7. A third party candidate: Hand out a delicious candy that is amazingly awesome but that nobody has heard of before. Nobody comes to your house.

6. Vice President Caingrich, under President Perry.

5. A Tea Party Protestor - Yell at little kids who come to your house asking for candy, since it's unjust taxation on the candy-rich.

4. Herman Cain: Yes, Mrs. Jones, I'd like a Kit-Kat, please... Here you go, Hermie sweetie. Next!... Wait, I misunderstood the question. I'd actually like Reese's Pieces.

3. USS Carl Vinson - take the candy you don't like, and dump it in the ocean.

2. Dick Cheney: Give chocolate to quails and shoot tricker-or-treaters because you "were confused about which was which". And quails can't eat chocolate, so double succes!

And now for...

1. THE SCARIEST COSTUME OF THEM ALL.... A three-headed monster consisting of Presidents Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama. 

Make the right choice in 2012. Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Liberty, Success!

New Letter to the Editor - Cover all Candidates

Today, I had a new letter to the editor published in the Poughkeepsie Journal. To read it, click on the link (noting that it is spread over two pages, though I am told it is one page on the mobile website) or read below.

I hope that you will provide more coverage of third-party candidates during the upcoming election season than you have in years past.
You may feel that they have no chance of winning. However, you are misunderstanding cause and effect. It is the lack of attention from media that renders these candidates unviable. In other words, the fact that you think they can't win is exactly what is preventing them from winning. If fair coverage were given to other candidates, we would see completely different results on election day.
In fact, if everyone who was fed up with both "major" parties were to vote for a third party instead, no Democrat or Republican would stand a chance. But the press continuously ignores them, lest attention allow them to seize control from what Ralph Nader described as a "two-party dictatorship."

Therefore, I strongly urge both the paper and the voters to pay attention to other candidates on election day. If you are fed up with politics as usual, vote for someone who will bring something different.The Green Party gained full ballot access in New York state and should contest many local offices. The Libertarian Party is expected to field some candidates as well. But whatever your political preferences, vote for a candidate you truly support, even if that candidate is not a Democrat or a Republican. And to the media, provide attention to those candidates. If you truly are balanced, don't decide for us who can and can't win an election.

Gregory Koch 

Poughkeepsie

 I am on medical leave from UConn this semester *, but still hope to submit some letters to the Daily Campus if I can read it online. With the semester starting Monday, look for those on some Fridays beginning next week.


* - I don't want to post full details about this online. If you want them, email me.

How the Mainstream Media Influences Elections

Update: An updated version of this article was included in the Alternative Political Society's magazine, The Alternative. You can view it here (PDF).

Recently on The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly responded to a viewer's question about why he did not provide coverage of GOP candidates Ron Paul and Herman Cain. After all, isn't O'Reilly supposed to be the "no-spin zone"?. Bill's response was simply "they have no chance of winning". Aside from the fact that the show still covers unwinnable wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, this illustrates a major paradox of election coverage.

Paul and Cain are not being denied coverage because they have no chance of winning. Rather, they have no chance of winning because they are being denied coverage. Below is a list of current GOP candidates, and the number of Google News articles for the last 30 days referring to each of them as of 2:20 PM on August 20. The names were put in quotes, to avoid articles about Paul Rudd and Ron Berkle from being included in this.

Michele Bachmann: 15,400
Ron Paul: 10,400
Mitt Romney: 17,200
Rick Perry: 23,200
Herman Cain: 5,320
Rick Santorum: 5,520

With Bachmann, Perry, and Romney being hailed as the front-runners, it comes as no surprise that they have far more news stories than Paul, Cain, and Santorum. However, is this a cause or an effect of their lack of success? First of all, Ron Paul finished a close second in the Iowa Straw Poll. But the media still ignored him. Jonathan Martin of Politico.com wrote an article which originally had the headline "Michele Bachmann wins Ames Straw Poll, Tim Pawlenty Gets Third". After Pawlenty withdrew, the headline was revised to simply note Bachmann's win. However, at no point did it note Paul's second place finish, even though he received 2,500 more votes than Pawlenty.

This attention bias is not new. During the CNN-Youtube debate for the 2008 Democratic nomination, fringe candidate Mike Gravel questioned whether it was "fair" that he had received significantly less airtime than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards had. Indeed, according to the Wikipedia article, 13 candidates were asked to all the candidates, though Obama, Edwards, and Clinton were frequently given more time to answer these. Furthermore, seven questions were specifically directed at Edwards, ten at Obama, and nine at Clinton. So-called "minor" candidates Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich were given five questions each. Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson, also dubbed "minor" by the mainstream media, were given seven each, the same as Edwards, but many of those were redirects that had already been asked to a major candidate. Gravel himself received six questions in addition to the ones for everybody.

In the 2010 New York Governor election, the TV networks managed to hold a debate featuring all seven candidates on the ballot. In addition to Democrat Andrew Cuomo and Republican Carl Paladino, five minor party candidates were featured. Howie Hawkins (Green), Warren Redlich (Libertarian), Jimmy McMillan (Rent is Too Damn High), Charles Barron (Freedom) and Kristin Davis (Anti-Prohibition) all appeared in person. This is a change from the standard practice of only featuring the Democrat and the Republican and ignoring everyone else.

The results showed. Hawkins, Redlich, and McMillan all exceeded their parties' highest vote totals ever in a NY governor election, and in the case of Redlich and McMillan, by a large margin. Hawkins managed to obtain 50,000 votes and get the Green Party "major party" status in New York, thus entitling it to easier ballot access in local elections within the state for the next four years. The Libertarian Party came within 1,500 votes of the magic 50K, whereas it had never even achieved more than 15,000 votes before. McMillan, on the other hand, become somewhat of a celebrity, inspiring a sketch on Saturday Night Live. Of course, "major party" and "minor party" status is just as bad as "major candidate" and "minor candidate" differentiation, but nevertheless, helping these third parties gain more attention is never a bad thing. I give a lot of credit to NY1 for organizing this, and to Cuomo and Paladino for agreeing to it, something most Democrats and Republicans would never do.

I hope that in the future, we will stop seeing less of a media bias against alleged "minor candidates", both in the primaries and general elections. I also hope that voters themselves will stop refusing to vote for minor parties simply because they are "minor". The Saratoga, NY newspaper The Post-Star endorsed Andrew Cuomo in that election. However, it said something rather curious about Redlich and Hawkins.

We've been particularly impressed by Libertarian candidate Warren Redlich, a Guilderland town councilman and attorney who distinguished himself at the lone gubernatorial debate with reasonable, well-considered, educated responses to discussion of the state's problems. He is willing to be specific about how he will eliminate several state agencies, end corporate welfare, and cap public sector pay and pensions as a way of stopping the state's wasteful spending practices.
With more governing experience and by broadening his voter base, Mr. Redlich could become a serious statewide candidate in the future. If you're casting a protest vote, Mr. Redlich is your best choice. But now is not the time to install a newbie in the governor's office, even an articulate one with good ideas.

Perennial Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, a UPS worker from central New York, is running on a modified New Deal platform that calls for public works projects and taxing the rich, as well as legalizing marijuana and free SUNY tuition. He's not ready to run the state.

This begs two similar questions. Why isn't now the time to elect a political newbie as governor? Has politics as usual worked yet? And why isn't Hawkins ready to run the state. So they don't agree with his platform. I certainly don't either. But they also obviously don't agree with Paladino's platform, or they would have endorsed him. Yet they don't say he's not ready to run the state. (Interestingly enough, the Daily News did mention that the GOP failed to field a remotely credible candidate in their endorsement of Cuomo. Had they said anything else, that wouldn't be too unusual. They didn't.)


So to summarize, we should judge for ourselves who the best candidates are. And we should be given the resources to consider ALL candidates equally, not just the ones the media wants us to consider. So to both the media and the voters in general - be open to those candidates you consider "minor". With your help, we can make them major.