Democrats Claim That They Stand Against Corporate Power
Every candidate claims they will take on special interests and/or that they will work with corporate interests so the American people can have change. What exactly does that mean? Do these candidates really have that capability?
With the issue of Social Security privatization, only two candidates, Kucinich and Richardson came out and explicitly stated that privatization should be taken off the table. Clinton was talking corporate rhetoric and calling for “fiscal responsibility”, “bipartisan commitment”, and looking at the context of those to see what else can be done. This would involve leaving “all options on the table”. Obama handled the issue exactly like Hillary seconding all of what Hillary said. Both failed to commit to raising the tax cap to a level above $97, 500 and instead, chose to weigh down the discussion with hubris. Hillary even explicitly stated she would put “nothing” on the table for solving social security during the debate.
Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Edwards, and Kucinich all called for raising the taxes because that is what must be done to confront the possibility of cutting benefits or doubling taxes. Others understood, as Dodd referred Obama’s and Hillary’s talk, that we do not have to use “draconian measures.” As Kucinich said “unless we have a president who states very clearly, no privatization” there will be a continuation of problems in America. In short, those who can’t give “hypotheticals” do not deserve to be president.
Smoking made it into the debate and all candidates were asked to say if they would support a national law to ban smoking in public places. Obama and Hillary again chose rhetorical hubris. Obama said, “I think local communities are making nice strides.” Hillary said she was not in favor of a national law. Both were not able to support the law. Could campaign contributions from tobacco companies (Clinton- $32,300 or Obama-$7,885) have anything to do with this? After all, every other candidate was in favor of the ban including Dodd (who surprisingly leads the Democrats in campaign contributions from tobacco companies, according to OpenSecrets.org).
Like Kucinich said, “Wait a minute. I’ve been breathing in a lot of secondhand smoke here tonight. You bet I’ll go for a national law.” Hadn’t we all been breathing in secondhand smoke? Seriously though, he had no problem calling for a ban because he, like Edwards and Gravel, has not accepted campaign contributions from any tobacco company.
Kucinich is the only one who can stand up to corporate powers, and the success story he has in his past, which Americans should be impressed by, proves that. Americans should cease upon the chance to vote for a man who “took a stand on behalf of the people of Cleveland” when mayor “to save a muncipal electric system” that was threatened when “the banks, utilities in Cleveland---private utilities---were trying to force” him into selling the system. As Kucinich states, “On December 15, 1978, I told the head of the biggest bank when he told me I had to sell the system in order to get the city’s credit renewed that I wasn’t going to do it.” He explains that he knew where he came from and remembered his parents struggling to pay for utilities and could not allow utility bills to skyrocket. He added that this act showed he had "the ability to stand up for the people.” He campaigned in 1994 with the slogan “Because I Was Right” and won in the state senate race and later. In 1996, he won a congressional seat on the slogan that he would “Light Up Congress” Having saved the municipal electricity system, he got what he deserved, respect. And he should and will continue to gain respect of Americans because no other candidate has a success story like this to show they can stand up to corporate interests or special interests.
Conclusion
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
