Pete Seeger and the WFP

In these critical midterm elections – with so much on the line – a disastrous war in Iraq; the continuing erosion of our bedrock rights and liberties; and deepening economic inequality…. the great singer and activist Pete Seeger has written a powerful letter on behalf of the Working Families Party (WFP) and its slate of candidates on the ballot in New York.

The WFP aims to send a strong antiwar message to the politicians, and it has updated and re-recorded Seeger's Vietnam-era classic, Bring 'em Home as part of its "Bring Them Home" campaign.

In his letter Seeger writes, "Here in New York, voting on the Working Families line is the best way to tell the politicians, bring them home, bring them home." Seeger quotes a key verse of his song to capture the spirit of the WFP message: "the world needs teachers, books and schools … And learning a few universal rules."

In addition to ending the war, the WFP agenda calls for universal healthcare, affordable housing, a living wage and closing the income gap through progressive taxation. The WFP claims an organized and diverse bloc of voters committed to economic populism, and it uses its electoral power to push major-party politicians to follow its agenda. Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Eliot Spitzer, solicited Working Families as his first endorsement.

There are eight states in the nation that allow "fusion" voting (where a candidate can appear on the ballot as the nominee for more than one party), and Spitzer will be listed separately as the nominee of both Democrats and the WFP--as will Senator Hillary Clinton. (For those who believe the WFP should have stayed neutral in the Clinton race--or, better, endorsed her opponent Jonathan Tasini--just vote for Spitzer and WFP candidates in down ballot races.) By pulling the lever for the WFP (Row E on the ballot), voters can support a candidate while also making a clear statement that the WFP and its antiwar stance represent their values.

"When you vote on the Working Families Party line, your vote carries a distinctive message. Start bringing American men and women serving in Iraq back home. Right now," said WFP Executive Director, Dan Cantor.

With Spitzer far ahead in the polls, and real and justified disappointment among progressives about Clinton's position on the war, there is a concern that New York's voter turnout might be low. But for those committed to ending this war, and sending that message loud and clear to Clinton and her fellow-Democrats – show up for this election and vote for Spitzer and WFP candidates in down ballot races.

As Seeger reminds in the close of his inspiring letter, "Our votes do count. And if we vote to bring the troops home, they count even more."

Comments (36)

1. WFP ("Row E on the ballot"...hehe).....best news for the New York Republicans since David Dinkins!

   Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 10:24am

2. .."closing the income gap through progressive taxation"..

   And their "winning" campaign slogan....

   Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 10:27am

3. Let me get this straight..

   a candidates name can appear on more than 1 line on the same ballot? Well, this is right the dems alley...better than graveyrards voting...can hardly claim count all the votes, eh? do all the votes cast for the candidate go to the candidate or the party on the line where the name is located...again?

   Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 10:40am

4. In a recent interview [brickburner.blogs.com] with journalist Joshua Frank, Cindy Sheehan endorses the Green Party candidate for Senate Howie Hawkins and calls for the formation of a third party to replace the two pro war parties both of which "have their pockets lined by the same corporate interests."

   Good to see that at least some of us understand that voting for pro-war candidates does nothing to advance the anti-war movement. In fact, as we saw over the last election cycle, it shoots it in the heart.

   The Nation, yet again shows itself incapable of understanding this elementary point of logic.

   Posted by john.halle at 10/23/2006 @ 10:41am

5. Posted by JOHN.HALLE 10/23/2006 @ 10:41am

   HALLE, endorsements from Cindy Sheehand have as much relevance as endorsements from Denny Hastert at this point.

   There's only one thing that needs to be understood about the Greens...."Nader 2000".

   Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 11:04am

6. Posted by MASK 10/23/2006 @ 10:24am

   WFP ("Row E on the ballot"...hehe).....best news for the New York Republicans since David Dinkins!

   Mask, you know I don't normally bother responding to these little canards of yours, but this is just illogical. How exactly will this help the Republicans if the WFP isn't fielding its own candidates? Any candidate that (should) get their nomination would already be on a major party ticket (unless they're a Green or some other minor party candidate, but that's likely to be irrelevant in this context) and supporting their issues already. That's not likely to sway anyone who'd vote Republican because of those issues in any case (since they'd never vote for the candidate as a Democrat either.) You're slipping Mask...

   Posted by Stwriley at 10/23/2006 @ 11:26am

7. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/23/2006 @ 10:27am

   .."closing the income gap through progressive taxation"..

   And their "winning" campaign slogan....

   A slogan that will appeal to a lot of people, actually. Just because they're ideologically the opposite of you John, doesn't mean that this is a message that won't find resonance with many voters (or potential voters.) You'd be surprised at just how many struggling people will welcome it. I know you find the very idea anathema, but that doesn't make it bad politics.

   Posted by Stwriley at 10/23/2006 @ 11:31am

8. Stwriley,

   I am WELL awre many will suipport this slogan, its just that those of us who will have our hard earned dollars taken from us see this same old message repackaged over and over...and I for one, will rearrange my dollars to prevent this type of stealing...

   it is impossible to tax ones way to prosperity..or by taking more from one who earned it only to give it to others who can't, won't, or couldn't isn't a way to build equity or prosperity. It breeds hostility..

   and the left keeps banging this drum...

   Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 11:49am

9. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/23/2006 @ 10:40am

   Let me get this straight..

   a candidates name can appear on more than 1 line on the same ballot? Well, this is right the dems alley...better than graveyrards voting...can hardly claim count all the votes, eh? do all the votes cast for the candidate go to the candidate or the party on the line where the name is located...again?

   Oh John, it's not that hard to understand. Every vote is cast both for a party and a candidate in U.S. election (well, the vast majority, anyway; there are a few elections that are explicitly non-partisan and thus have no party component, but those are rare and mostly for things like judicial elections.) The vote is counted once for the candidate (and this is what determines the winner of the election) but also is counted for the party and determines other issues like automatic ballot access for the party's nominees. It does not and cannot result in voting errors or fraud (as you seem to be worried about) since the party line part of the vote is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the election of a candidate.

   States that allow multiple party lines are simply giving minor (or new) parties the chance to show voter support of the party (and thus endorsement of its ballot access, etc.) while allowing them to support candidates that they feel will not waste their supporters' votes. It's actually a pretty democratic (and I use the lower case there on purpose) idea. I'd think a Libertarian like you would like it, since it lets the people themselves organize and use parties for their own purposes without having to jump through hoops set up by the major parties. In states where fusion voting is not possible (like my own Pennsylvania) the hurdles to ballot access for minor parties are very high and they have a terrible time getting any candidate before the voters (just witness the Green's fiasco with their Senate candidate and the depths they sank to in using Republican money to try and get over the ballot access hurdles.) Whether you agree with Seeger and the WFP or not, the idea of fusion voting is a very good one, well within keeping of our Constitution and the Founders' intent.

   Posted by Stwriley at 10/23/2006 @ 11:50am

10. Thanks for the cogent correspondence STWRiley.

    Halle, it seems you're incapable of, or unwilling to acknowledge the fact that the left-wing of the Democratic Party is still the best vehicle for effecting political change in this obsessively and compulsively centrist (read mediocre) nation-state of ours.

    Posted by lewwelge at 10/23/2006 @ 12:16pm

11. Posted by STWRILEY 10/23/2006 @ 11:26am

    Future, STW, future.

    Anything...Green, WFP, etc....that splits the "liberal vote"...helps the Republicans.

    You think WFP is just going to sit on the sidelines and endorse Democrats forever? No, they're running this scenario, to see how it plays out, to start fielding some candidates in 2008. Or, if a Democrat isn't toeing the line...a "Lamont" challenger from the WFP.

    (and we all see how well THAT idea is playing out!)

    Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 12:18pm

12. STW,

    So, if on the ballot there is a box next to Hillary as a Democrat and a box for Hillary for WPF(gotta love that name),at the end of the day....Hillary gets 2 votes counted or does the dem candidate get 1 and the WPF get 1...and could Hillary tie with Hillary? If there are only 3 voters in the city and the 3rd one above votes Repub...who wins? Does Hillary get 2 votes to the 1 for whomever the Repub was?

    Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 12:27pm

13. I was wondering when Katrina was going to get around to pimping Hillary and the downballot corporate bunch. The WFP is a nice beard for the prowar "antiwar" faux-left democrats to get their warbot candidates elected.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 10/23/2006 @ 1:24pm

14. Trying to understand the difference between "pimping" Hillary and "mentioning" Hillary. Nope. Still not understanding it.

    I had not heard of the ballot structure that KVH and STWRILEY discuss. It is certainly a first step, albeit a baby one, to diversifying electoral options. The first adult step would be for each party to actually nominate a candidate of its own. My question in two parts is why would Spitzer shoot for the WFP endorsement before he had secured his Dem nomination and why would the WFP give it to him knowing he thought of them as little more than the local VFW or the Albany Times-Union?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/23/2006 @ 1:31pm

15. For what it's worth, this summer I heard Seeger in an interview with Terri Gross (Fresh Air), and came to a personal conclusion: Pete Seeger is (in my opinion) the Greatest Living American.

    Hey. Somebody's got to be on top. I saw no better candidate.

    B.

    Posted by Blinky at 10/23/2006 @ 1:38pm

16. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/23/2006 @ 12:27am

    So, if on the ballot there is a box next to Hillary as a Democrat and a box for Hillary for WPF(gotta love that name),at the end of the day....Hillary gets 2 votes counted or does the dem candidate get 1 and the WPF get 1...and could Hillary tie with Hillary? If there are only 3 voters in the city and the 3rd one above votes Repub...who wins? Does Hillary get 2 votes to the 1 for whomever the Repub was?

    Holy hand grenade of Antioch! You're worse than my freshmen, John.

    Seriously though, you keep trying to conflate two different things here. In your hypothetical three voter New York Senatorial election from above, if one voter votes for Hillery as a Democratic candidate, one votes for her as a WFP candidate, and one votes for Tasini as a Republican candidate, then the final vote tally in regards to who gets elected will be Hillary = 2, Tasini = 1. In other words, as far as who gets elected it is (as it always has been) one person, one vote, and the highest vote total wins. The critical part of fusion voting comes in when voting officials (and I might add, the candidates themselves) look at those votes for other purposes.

    The election officials will look at them (as I'd noted before) to determine ballot access for the next election. In your hypothetical, the WFP (since they gained as many votes as a party as the Democrats or the Republicans) would be entitled to have their nominee on the ballot the next election without having to go through the other processes that minor parties do but major parties with ballot access do not, like gathering petition signatures to place their nominee's name on the ballot. Just because that nominee is also the nominee of another party, does not change this. It has no impact on which person is elected at the time, but does have an impact on which parties can have access the next time and get their candidates (whether they share them with another party or not) on the ballot and before the voters as a choice.

    The candidates will also look at those numbers to see which party their support came from. That tells them important things about how their constituents feel about issues (since parties are inherently about ideological and issue positions) and lets them know what those who voted for them favor in a much more refined sense than the current two-party system. After all, when you vote Republican (as I assume you do from many of the things you've written here) do you think that they get the message that you're really a Libertarian who happens to support them as the best available option close to your own opinion? Wouldn't you rather be able to vote for that candidate as a Libertarian and let them know where your true ideology stands, and what you expect of them? That's what we're talking about with fusion voting. It's an inherently democratic (as in, in favor of democracy and the participation of all citizens) idea. Think about it John, I'm sure you'll find that it's something that can actually be squared quite easily with your own libertarian values.

    Posted by Stwriley at 10/23/2006 @ 1:40pm

17. It is, within my libertarian views, however, by placing the same name under different catergorys opens up one to be all things to all people, most of whom are not intelligent enough to understand the differences..

    What do you teach and at what level?

    And my question is more directed at you for this idea,...if one votes for Hillary as a dem and the next voter votes for Hillary as a green and another votes for her as a conservative.....it seems the advantage goes to the candiadte whos name appears most on the ballots..

    Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 2:19pm

18. Don't say it can't be done/ The battle's just begun/ Take it from Dr. King/ You too can learn to sing/ so drop the gun

    Posted by Beausoleil at 10/23/2006 @ 2:37pm

19. Couldn't get Bruce Springsteen, huh?

    Posted by woodyee at 10/23/2006 @ 3:46pm

20. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. 30 years later, the withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

    A very large chunk of that money went to fund public works programs, infrastructure, social security, and the GI Bill (as well as wars). By providing for returning service men and women, a clear path to things like home ownership, college educations, the ability to travel conveniently from urban work centers to suburban housing centers, etc., that tax revenue helped to fuel one of the largest expansions of the "middle class" ever seen...certainly in this country and perhaps, according to many experts, anywhere in history. To me, that certainly sounds like it qualifies as 'prosperity'.

    Yet somehow, that simple and undeniable reality just doesn't seem to square with statements like "it is impossible to tax ones way to prosperity..or by taking more from one who earned it only to give it to others who can't, won't, or couldn't isn't a way to build equity or prosperity. It breeds hostility.."

    Posted by Lillian at 10/23/2006 @ 7:49pm

21. Lillian

    Excellent points, the wanker squad once again proves they are totally clueless anally retentives with massch in the lead wheres his sidekick lvl.

    Gotta check this out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15147009/ another factual revelation we should all heed snd spread as far and as fast as we can.

    Posted by dycel8r at 10/23/2006 @ 10:19pm

22. Another paste to check hits home even harder http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/

    Posted by dycel8r at 10/23/2006 @ 10:34pm

23. Lil,

    My 9th grader gets it...by your ah, interpetation, the taxes made the middle class, then if we carry to it final solution, the more we tax the more prosperous we will become...so why not tax us at 100%? We will be more prosperous... The main ingredient you constantly leave out is the human..who refuses to let you in charge of his money due to your lack of grasp of how money really works...ask those who earn and try to keep it? Judging by your statement I deduce you don't make any money and usualy those who have none are more than happy to take from those who do..

    Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 11:00pm

24. Ah the clueless massch once again spouts, usually has two "l's". Bet my scotch is better than yours!

    Posted by dycel8r at 10/23/2006 @ 11:04pm

25. DYCE...see this one yet?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/

    Posted by liveeasy at 10/23/2006 @ 11:23pm

26. I love the way he says, "You, sir," with the maximum possible scorn and contempt.

    Posted by liveeasy at 10/23/2006 @ 11:29pm

27. Liveeasy

    Great Special Comment saw it tonight on MSNBC everyone should read this then pass it on. Check out the rest of Mr Olbermann's Comments hey all hit a nerve based on fact not retoric.

    Posted by dycel8r at 10/24/2006 @ 12:07am

28. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/

    Yawn..another lib mouth piece on MSM no one listens to...

    Posted by john maasch at 10/24/2006 @ 12:08am

29. Whats amatter massch the truth too much for you your stance on reality is totally redundant to whats real in the world.

    Posted by dycel8r at 10/24/2006 @ 12:24am

30. so why not tax us at 100%? We will be more prosperous...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/23/2006 @ 11:00pm

    Isn't that the hamster opposite of cuting taxes to 0% so we can send tax revenues through the roof?

    And you say we don't know how money works...

    Posted by Will C. at 10/24/2006 @ 12:39am

31. and it isn't everyday a man admits his ninth grader is a retard

    Posted by Will C. at 10/24/2006 @ 12:40am

32. Between 0% and 100%....I WOULD like to know where the modern liberal comes down on a figure.

    The "This...but no more" figure for a progressive income tax.

    Seriously, I don't think I'll get too many answers. For if we "go back to the old pre-Reagan days" (an old classic response), then the "but not more" argument will fall apart. Reason? There WAS a deficit under Carter, if small in comparison to today's.

    But that was BEFORE a true push for a universal health care system, alternative fuel "Apollo Projects", etc. And only one way to pay for them...more taxation.

    It was also what INSPIRED the rise of Howard Jarvis, Proposition 13, and Reaganism for that matter.

    And the "why?"...simple. Liberals thought they could keep rising taxes indefinitely and nobody would complain. And why did they think that...same reason they screw up on everything else...they couldn't fathom that anybody would think they were WRONG, or worse, that they may ACTUALLY BE WRONG!

    Posted by Mask at 10/24/2006 @ 09:04am

33. Although not representative of much aside from my maleness and developed identity today, I will say that Howard Zinn's reminder we had 90%(!!) tax rates on the highest wage earners in the past which seems excessively "progressive," IMHO. Still, I suspect you're fishing for support for something like a tithe-like 10% across the board tax rate. Am I way off, Mask?

    Posted by lewwelge at 10/24/2006 @ 09:42am

34. Posted by LEWWELGE 10/24/2006 @ 09:42am

    Actually, I'm just fishing for an ANSWER. An honest one

    Zinn atleast is honest about his embrace of Marxism.

    90% top marginal rate was excessive. Know who said so?

    John Kennedy, who pushed for an across-the-board cut. Now, what liberal today (even a JFK devotee) would agree to that (you?..hope so).

    Ultimately, I think a lot on the Left would be pretty happy with 90% for a LOT of people, if it meant the cradle-to-grave European model of endless benefits with endless expansions.

    I'd just like them to admit it once. But most won't. They'll claim first they just want to "repeal to Bush cuts" and go back to the Clinton levels...fine. Then, they'll start talking about how "the disasterous deficits we've had started with the Reagan cuts"....and finally end with "Hey, we had 90% top marginals during the 50s, and times were GREAT then!"

    My question....where does it end?

    Posted by Mask at 10/24/2006 @ 10:48am

35. My question....where does it end?

    Posted by MASK 10/24/2006 @ 10:48am

    It ends when you die

    Posted by Will C. at 10/24/2006 @ 11:49am

36. Death and taxes, baby.

    "...the more we tax the more prosperous we will become...so why not tax us at 100%? We will be more prosperous..."

    Seriously dude. I hope your ninth grader is just humoring you. And you should too.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/24/2006 @ 7:09pm