Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Big interview with SoS candidate Jill Stein @ Phoenix

By

As usual, the Phoenix’s Adam Reilly drills quite a bit deeper than the, uh, “non-alternative” media, and does a long-form interview with GRP Secretary of State candidate Jill Stein. Check it out.

UPDATE: I’ll just stick a quote from the candidate herself here, to give you an idea of what she’s about:

… The bottom line is, I’m very focused on money and influence peddling as an overarching issue, and I’m very concerned about voting rights as one aspect of our democracy, which is in crisis. But it’s not my lead issue. My lead issue is that our democracy is in crisis, and there are many aspects to that. Money and influence is a big one. That’s really where my focus is.

Q. So how would you as secretary of state try to address that big issue?

A. Well, the secretary can play a very important role, because the secretary oversees the critical institutions of democracy–both the institutions that support it and the institutions that threaten it, the support being elections and public information, and the threats being the funding of those elections and lobbying and the behavior of corporations. So the secretary has enormous latitude to move those issues.

I should say that I think her take on the health care bill is really overly negative. It is flawed as all hell, and yet real people have already been helped, more are going to be helped, and some of the negative impacts that she regards as a fait accompli have not been implemented yet, and will likely never be. FWIW. Health Care for All’s John McDonough has much more.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I’m voting for her. Just wish everyone would.

    <

    p>
    Twice now, I’ve heard former President Jimmy Carter say that the American voting system wouldn’t pass the smell test of the Carter Center.

    <

    p>
    Here’s what Pres. Carter said on NPR yesterday:

    <

    p>

    It would not qualify at all for instance for participation by the Carter Center in observing. We require for instance that there be uniform voting procedures throughout an entire nation. In the United States you’ve got not only fragmented from one state to another but also from one county to another. There is no central election commission in the United States that can make final judgment. It’s a cacophony of voices that come in after the election is over with, thousands or hundreds of lawyers contending with each other. There’s no uniformity in the nation at all. There’s no doubt that that there’s severe discrimination against poor people because of the quality of voting procedures presented to them. Another thing in the United States that we wouldn’t permit in a country other than the United States is that we require that every candidate in a country in which we monitor the elections have equal access to the major news media, regardless of how much money they have. In the United States, as you know, it’s how much advertising you can by on television and radio. And so the richest candidates prevail, and unless a candidate can raise sometimes hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, they can’t even hope to mount a campaign, so the United States has a very inadequate election procedure.

    <

    p>
    Nice democracy you’re spreading there, Shrub.

Archives