Matching Grant Challenge
BruceMatch
We’re slowly making headway in our annual fund drive, but not nearly fast enough to meet our make-or-break goal.  On the bright side, a generous CounterPuncher has stepped forward with a pledge to match every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate.
 unnamed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

The Liberal "Intelligentsia" v. Nader

Things They Should Consider

by AL KREBS

Before the Democratic Party and its "liberal intelligentsia" unleash its expected vindictiveness upon Ralph Nader’s candidacy for president in 2004 it might consider the following:

* Al Gore (with an able assist from the U.S. Supreme Court) lost the electoral vote for president in 2000. He not only lost his home state but that of his president. If his managers had spent less time in that campaign attacking Nader’s candidacy and more time arranging at least one trip to West Virginia, a traditional Democratic state, Gore would have won that state making Florida irrelevant.

* Arguments that Nader work within the Democratic Party for genuine change, as Howard Dean’s populist candidacy in recent months leading up to the current primaries demonstrated, only begets the wrath of a Party establishment intent on preserving its power and the present "two party duopoly" governing our country.

* Progressives believe it is important to "defeat Bush at any cost," but as Nader points out "while it is important that Bush must be defeated," Democrats are currently incapable of it "without someone running a third party campaign with a strong Bush critique pulling them in the right direction."

* The tendency of progressives tied to the Democratic Party, while admitting to the party’s sizable failings, is to still cling to the idea that "this is not the time," to run a third party campaign from the left. "They have no breaking point, no point of termination" Nader points out. "They watch Democrats in office offer them one defeat after another without ever being willing to establish a termination strategy, a point beyond which too much is too much."

Thus if the Democratic Party spent less time and effort trying to seduce its "corporate paymasters," exhibit a willingness to wage an unintimidated and full bore attack on George W. Bush’s domestic and international policies while returning the party of the people to its Jeffersonian populist roots there would be no need to waste its scarce resources continuously and needlessly attacking Ralph Nader.

AL KREBS is the editor of the Agribusiness Examiner, one of CounterPunch’s favorite newsletters. He can be reached at: avkrebs@earthlink.net