Green Party Presidential Candidate Presents a “New Green Deal”


PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network.
I’m Paul Jay in Baltimore. Well, the three conventions are over. Three,
you say? Yes–the Republican convention, the Democratic Party convention, and the Green
Party convention that in fact was held in Baltimore just a few weeks ago. And now joining us is the candidate of the
Green Party, Dr. Jill Stein, who’s running for president on behalf of the Green Party.
She’s an award-winning Massachusetts physician. She has a background in environmental health.
And she’s campaigning under the slogan “a Green New Deal for America”. Thanks for joining
us, Jill. JILL STEIN: Great to be with you, Paul. JAY: So let’s first of all talk about the
Republican and Democratic conventions. What’s your reaction? STEIN: Well, I’m glad to report that America
has survived another attack on our democracy and our dignity. We’ve managed to get through
this in one piece. It doesn’t look like the American public has become enamored of the
political establishment that has been, you know, raking us over the coals and delivering
a jobs crisis, a health crisis, an environmental crisis, a foreign-policy crisis, expanding
wars, you name it. Things are pretty much the same, although they would like to shake
the Etch a Sketch. And we heard Barack Obama try to do that last night and say, you know,
forget what I did, you know, hear what I say, I’m saying what I said four years ago, so
this time believe me. You know, I think it’s a case of fool me once,
shame on you; fool me twice, shame on all of us. And in this case it’s four years of
fool me. The American people, I think, are at a breaking point and are not going to sit
there. JAY: What specifically in President Obama’s
speech you want to take issue with? STEIN: That he has a solution, you know, to
anything, like to the jobs crisis, you know, or to reviving our education system. Or how
about the climate problem? Or how about the poverty war? You know, those things really
don’t come up. And how is it exactly that we are going to revive our economy? He said he will create 1 million jobs, 1 million
manufacturing jobs. Well, first of all, 1 million isn’t going to do it. We’ve got about
24 million people who are either out of work entirely or who are underemployed in jobs
that basically can’t keep a roof over their head. And, you know, what kind of jobs is
he talking about? Well, what he’s been talking about are the jobs at General Motors, which
he’s touting as the success. You know, as Joe Biden says, we’re better off today because
Barack Obama is dead and General Motors lives. JAY: Well, what’s wrong with that argument?
That was the centerpiece of the economic message at the convention, that President Obama saved
General Motors and Romney would let it go down. So what’s wrong with that? STEIN: Well, what’s wrong with that is that
this is more of the same. This is profits continuing to skyrocket at a multinational
corporation and CEO salaries, you know, better than ever. But the wages of workers have been
slashed, as have benefits. So, you know, we have a tiered-worker system
now that Barack Obama’s perfectly happy with. In fact, in his mind, this is what makes us
competitive with low-wage jobs overseas. This is–you know, this is what you get for these
free trade agreements signed by Bill Clinton, carried out by George Bush, and now expanded
massively by Barack Obama, by free trade agreements he’s already signed and another one in the
works. JAY: Yeah, by tiered, if people haven’t followed
this story, this is the idea where you have–new employees’ starting pay is about half what
it used to be; older employees kind of carry on more or less in the same wage range, but
new employees are coming in around $14 an hour, as opposed to $25, $26 an hour. STEIN: Exactly. And this has basically brought
manufacturing down to service industry jobs, you know, so that these are, you know, insecure.
These are not what we used to think about as good, unionized, secure jobs with benefits
and good living-wage pay. It’s not that anymore. And this is what the president is touting
as recovery. This is not recovery. We are not better off. And likewise, the proposition that because
Osama bin Laden is dead we’re better off, well, if so, why do we continue to squander
$1 trillion a year on this bloated military-industrial-security complex that is not making us more secure?
The president has expanded the war with the drones deeper into Pakistan, into Yemen, into
Somalia. The only reason he withdrew from Iraq was because it was George Bush’s withdrawal
date. We owe peace in Iraq, to the extent we have it, which we really don’t–you don’t
get peace out of the barrel of a gun. You know. But it was George Bush’s withdrawal
date that forced Barack Obama’s hand. He did everything in his power to try to keep us
there. So we’re not better off. And regardless of how much they may be shaking
the Etch a Sketch right now, I think people are in the crosshairs. We don’t have jobs.
Our wages are going down. A generation of students is essentially indentured servants
now for the foreseeable future. Climate is in meltdown. The attack on our civil liberties,
you know, initiated by George Bush has been massively expanded under this president with
the criminalization of protest, indefinite detentions, and the assassinations now even
of American citizens, which have basically been written into law under this president. So, you know, this politics of fear that tells
you, you’ve got to stay the course, you don’t dare stand up for yourself, that politics
of fear has a track record now. Over the past ten years, that politics of fear has proven
not to be an effective political strategy. In fact, politics of fear has delivered everything
we were afraid of. It’s time to stand up with the politics of courage [crosstalk] JAY: Now, in terms of your own campaign, you
had a television commercial you were raising money for, and you used Google as sort of
the media-buying service, and apparently they blocked that. So we’re going to show a little
bit of that ad and then talk about what happened. So you guys can roll the clip. STEIN (CAMPAIGN AD): A Green Party president
means an end to unemployment, to foreclosures, to student debt, to climate change, and an
end to corporate rule. We’re not talking spare change. We need a revolution. That’s what
we deserve. What we don’t deserve is pandering, irresponsible bull[bleep] that passes itself
off as campaigning. I can’t believe I just said that, but that’s how I feel. MAN: I’m voting for Jill Stein. MAN: I’m for Jill–. JAY: Well, that was the clip, and as you can
see, there was a bull-ugh something in that commercial. I guess the original version was
“bullshit”. And then Google apparently didn’t want to place these ads. So what happened,
Jill? STEIN: Well, we pointed out to Google that
in fact they cannot censor political ads, and in fact language, you know, off-color
language, swear words, are not prohibited on cable to start with. So Google had no business
whatsoever interfering with political free speech and with getting out a message to a
lot of–you know, millions upon millions of Americans who are being poorly served and
who are clamoring for exactly the solutions that we’re talking about and who are calling
for, you know, a third-party option that’s not bought and paid for by Wall Street. So
basically what happened was that we raised all those points to Google, and they backed
down, we think. We don’t have all the data in yet. We know that the ads were running
on many stations and in many parts of the country, but we don’t yet have complete data
to know that in fact Google has been carrying out their [crosstalk] JAY: But in principle they agreed that they
would distribute the commercial. STEIN: In principle, yes. JAY: Alright. So let’s finally–it’s a question
I know you get all the time, and you and I have talked about it before, but we have to
do it again ’cause it’s kind of the obvious elephant in the room. In your campaign literature
and in interviews, you more or less say that both the Democrats and the Republicans represent
the 1 percent, they don’t represent the 99 percent, so they’re really all the same and
there’s not really a choice between them. But the counterargument to that is, yes, perhaps
both parties represent the 1 percent, but they perhaps don’t represent them the same
way, that the Democratic Party, in order to get elected, has to throw something to its
constituency, which includes urban workers and immigrants and other people, and that
there is a difference between a straight Romneyesque-Ryan austerity plan and an Obama–continuation
of Obama policies, which I don’t think anyone, you know, who looks at it objectively could
argue it isn’t for a section of the 1 percent. But maybe it’s a somewhat mitigated policy
as compared to Romney, and certainly that’s the popular perception. So how do you answer
that? STEIN: You know, I think it’s important to
distinguish between the narratives and the reality, because the Democratic narrative
no doubt is warmer and fuzzier than the Republicans’, which is just unabashed, you know, greed and
self-promotion for the 1 percent–pretty clear what’s going on there. The Democratic narrative
is, you know, much more humane. It’s got some of the trappings of the Democratic Party agenda. But it’s really important to look at the facts
on the ground, you know, not just the narrative. You can talk the talk, but do you walk the
walk? Unfortunately, there is now a four-year track record, and it’s not a very good one.
And that’s not to say there aren’t some differences, because there are definitely differences around
the margins. But when you look at the core policies, it’s really clear that we have been
accelerating in the wrong direction under Barack Obama, as we did under George Bush.
And, in fact, on most key policies, when you actually look at them, Barack Obama has embraced
the policies of George Bush and even gone beyond them. More massive Wall Street bailout–there
were $700 billion under George Bush, $4.5 trillion of monies disbursed to the big banks
under Barack Obama, and an additional $16 trillion in essentially free money given away
as zero interest loans. Look at the free trade agreements, the undermining of wages in this
country, and the continued offshoring of our jobs. These free trade agreements have been
expanded by Barack Obama massively over what they were under George Bush, and this transpacific
partnership is basically NAFTA on steroids that the president is now negotiating in secret.
To look at the war effort, it actually expanded under Barack Obama, between the bombing of
Pakistan, which was intensified on day three–. Where was the Republican effort forcing his
hand to do that? He wasn’t forced. He wasn’t forced to bring in Larry Summers, the architect
of waste, fraud, and abuse on Wall Street that was responsible for crashing our economy.
This is the guy who’s brought in. You know, the guy who caused it is not going to be the
guy who’s going to fix it. To bring in Jeffrey Imelt to be the head of the jobs council.
Jeffrey Imelt, the CEO of GE who has single-handedly closed more factories and laid off more workers
than any other person in this country has been elevated to be the jobs czar in this
country. To look at the attack on our civil liberties, on climate, where Barack Obama
has embraced drill, baby, drill and gone far beyond anything that George Bush could get
away with, including opening up more offshore oil, the attack on the environment of the
Arctic and our national parks, the green light to fracking, the opening up of a whole new
generation of nuclear power plants as well, I mean, this president has gone so far beyond
what George Bush was able to get away with, because there’s real resistance when you have
a Republican in office. When you have a reassuring and endearing Democrat at the helm, it silences
opposition. And at the end of the day, it’s that grassroots
effort for democracy, it’s standing up and reclaiming our political voice and our political
courage that will actually drive us forward. The politics of fear has brought us everything
we were afraid of. It’s time for us to stand up and lead the way, ’cause they’re not going
to fix it. That’s eminently clear. JAY: Thanks very much, Jill. STEIN: Thank you, Paul. JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real
News Network.

About the author

Comments

  1. Jill Stein has my vote, I encourage everyone who loathes the (non) choices available this year to vote for a 3rd party in order to deliver putrid numbers to the 2-party cabal so whoever "wins" doesn't think they have a mandate. As for Congress, throw every last one of those spineless, brain-dead, unbeholden-to-their-constituents career politicians out the door. On their fat asses.

  2. These Greens Are no more than Socialist They should be called The Green Socialists Party. People if you want real change you need a Libertarian who believes in Voluntarism & Anacho Capitalism. Gary Johnson isn't perfect but he is far better then Jill Stein but I will give if you won't vote for Gary Johnson , Jill Stein is 10 000 000 TIMES better then Obama or Romney. It is time to END the 2 party system.

  3. I'd vote for her if I thought she had a chance to win. We all know (or should know) that a vote for her is a vote for Romney. I hate the two party system as well, but Americans won't vote in a third party candidate yet, so I'm not wasting my vote . I will do whatever I can to avoid a Romney Presidency. As for Jill, I think she is a great candidate. Unfortunately, our country isn't ready for a third party. I hope they will be soon !

  4. I think not ! Do you honestly think a third party can win? Have you not been paying attention to history? Tell me why I'm wrong oh wise one.

  5. There are many who will vote for Romney to avoid an Obama "win". Meanwhile, third parties and/or those who want to support other people and ideas are crowded out by a negative popularity contest that only results in propping up candidates many people don't even like. What have people really "won"?

  6. Sorry, but I just don't agree with you. This country will not vote in a third party candidate (I'm not saying that they shouldn't) I am all for a third party candidate, but this country will never do it right now, so it is a wasted vote. History will tell you that a third party candidate will not get anywhere near enough votes to win

  7. Thank you so much Paul, I had been grumbling about 3rd party coverage for a while. Now, I'll be voting Green this year! 🙂

  8. Okay I have to look up this Gary Johnson. But after this interview, no way in hell I'm voting for Obama, I didn't do it last time because I didn't know what he was about other than a good talker and came to quickly on the seen, the whole sh!t is so fvcking rigged. I still don't trust these voting machines but I still vote.

  9. If this is how the US will (finally) get a social-democrat 3rd party involved, then I applaud it. Granted, I suspect it will take another generation before they have any presence in Congress, since the American psyche is too entrenched in the two-party, Hotelling theory game to change that quickly.

  10. Greens are ok apart from BUYING the Bullshit Global Warming, Just as climate has been warmer in the past regardless of man made CO2, the FOOLS still buy the non-science as revealed in ClimateGate1, 2 and soon 3.

  11. I think all parties running for president should have equal air time in national news shows and they should all be represented in national debates. otherwise the elections in our country are rigged and not a true democracy.

  12. That about sums it all up. This woman definitely has a handle on the issues. I had hope for change, for the better when candidate Obama ran. Having listened to Mike Hutson explaining that Obama was/is a brand. He talks like a democrat as a brand should but the agenda hasn't changed a lick. It's only being allowed to intensify. But we do get the hope and change for the worse. Like she said no republican could get away with this. Amazing isn't it.

  13. No I do not believe what anybody tells me without using critical thinking, I do read avidly. As to conspiracy theories against me personally there are none, however there are many conspiracy theories out there and everything is a conspiracy theory I always say, it's just which one do you believe in. Just delivering messages, go ahead with your rant, because you do not know what you are talking about now, and I'm not meaning to be insulting to you, sorry if I offended you.

  14. The Green Party in Canada needs you Ms. Stein. I know you should win but if not come to Vancouver Island – you would win here!

  15. I answered a questionnaire and found that I agree with Mrs. Stein 85% of the time and President Obama 75% of the time. In 2000, Ralph Nader split the democrat vote and Bush got elected. I could possibly get Romney (0% on issues) elected over 10%!!! If Mrs. Stein doesn't have the insight to realize she is only hurting the progressive movement, she doesn't have the kind of insight needed to be President.

  16. Uhh.. the New Deal exacerbated and prolonged the Great Depression. Would she impose similar tactics in "combatting" our present economy?

  17. It's shocking that most people don't know their own state or federal election law.
    Jill Stein can win. It's a practical vote.

    In most states 1%to 5% results in a ballot line so local candidates can run and WIN in the next election cycle.

    Nationally if Jill Stein got 5% she and the Green Party would receive MILLIONS of DOLLARS in funding for both the candidate and campaign in the next election 2016. That's how you build realistically to win election.

    It starts by voting Jill Stein in 2012.

  18. Jobs like TSA NDAA HLS,anything to create a bigger army against the American People.= Taxpayers to pay for his army's.And he also has to fund the New Black Panthers to cover the voting polls to intimate the people to vote for Obama.

  19. Cultists rely on ignorance, Skeptics question everything and point out the dangers inanities of pseudoscience and bogus paranormal claims.

  20. I agree. This is why it makes no sense that you've joined an ignorant bandwagon. The vast majority of scientist from all over the world, completely separate entities, agree that man is contributing to climate change. You are free to believe the fringe outcast that say differently, they have a lot of big oil money to buy your opinion. Good luck to you. I'm out of here. 🙂

  21. I supported Nader in 1996 and 2000. I regret that not because he might have spoiled Al Gore's election (which is questionable) but but because he did not get elected and the Green Party and the ideas of the Green Party have not advanced since 2000.

    There is a difference between Democrats & Republicans, not as much as you and I would like, but significant enough not to waste my vote on a third party.

  22. Collectivism is the Opposite of Science even the NAZI's knew that. When the facts don't fit the model change the facts, That's what the IPCC have done THAT WAS THEIR FOUNDING MISSION!, and that Hockey stick fraudster (see he can't sue because he wont show his (fiction)) Knows it. My science show's Total correlation with Sun activity over time, not 100's of years, but 100,000 years. I don't use luck or cultism in any calculation.

  23. Please stop babbling like an idiot alex jones type. because you're wrong. They also address natural climate change, as well as what mankind contributes. Buy your SUV tool, the world is perfect. ie fuck off loser

  24. Fucking wack jobs. You have no foreign policy that does not include pointing fingers at Israel. Why don't you want to make it policy to return Musta Arabs and Yeshuvs to their homes? Will every country in North Africa, the Near and Middle east be repaying Hebrews for their losses? How about Russia, you have the balls? You are only basing things on religion in your policy while you say you won't. You are pathological hypocrites and idealists (ie idiots) who have a unethical agenda with no logic.

  25. Ich gebe dir im Grunde Recht – aber wenn alle Anhänger der Grünen so denken, dann werden die Grünen nie stark!

  26. What climate problem? Back in the age of T-Rex, the entire planet was hot house and the seas were much higher. Talk about climate change hahahahaah.

  27. The UN can destroy itself, they are bunch of totalitarian Orwellian anti semitic lunatics. We should demolish that building in Manhatten or making it office space out of it.

  28. There is nothing wrong with the energy. It is the waste and the possible melt-down. The whole safety issue—SEE Japan tsunami.

  29. I just went online to her webb site and I agree with a lot of what she does. I am against illegal immigration and gay people getting legally married without large taxes on them. Sorry just my feelings but I will live and go on with my life if either happens. I am glad to support a third party however the illegals taking over American jobs sucks for me. Here in Alabama we passed the immigration law last year and now we are finally employed in the construction bus. and are no longer homeless.

  30. you do know you are giving me a headache—explain away 3 mile and Chernobyl and let's bury the waste in your backyard—your neighbors won't mind since you don't-it's safe, I promise.

  31. I am very angry about the loss of my rights to protest this is not good at all I grew up in the nam era like her and this country is headed for disaster

  32. Also, i forgot, I do that. Yes, I am familiar with thorium, it is safer, but what do you do with all the old, decaying, outdated facilities we have? Do you have an idea what it might cost to build all new plants? There's many questions, if you have the answers—GREAT.

  33. From my research, Nuclear Energy is a deadly alternative to fossil fuel that becomes only remotely affordable after it is intensely subsidized by the government. It is good that the Green Party chooses to focus on these issues as they are relevent. However, this women is not the answer. Her attitude is pretty pretentious and irritating; this doesn't stimulate support from poorly-read voters and others scared of change huge changes needed.

  34. The Green parties message isclear and our current actions will perpetuate government failures in each sense addressed. "if the shoe doesn't fit,what good is a taylor?" The issue cannot be left to politics however,toassume democracy will save our current lifestyle is wrong. Consume less, grow food learn to produce from home, make what you have last! What great & simple ideas.Immigration is not the issue, we call them "evil" like we call muslims "evil" to fortify our identification as the "good".

  35. your points aren't valid. Does it matter if someone comes off as "pretty pretentious and irritating" if they're RIGHT on policy and governance? Who cares if jill doesn't appeal to the very stupid. Third party candidates only got 2% of the vote in my state, most of that was probably ron paul. So I'm proud to belong to some fraction of 2% of people who think for themselves.

  36. It's amusing that the newsperson mentioned 3 conventions, as if more people are members of the Green party than the Libertarian party.

  37. Obviously nuclear fission energy can be dangerous and is not ideal, but surely it's a good stopgap to transition off of fossil fuels.

  38. If you can't tell whether there is a comment there or not, you have no business discussing something as complex as nuclear energy.

  39. "meltdowns don't happen" umm yeah, keep telling yourself that and denying history. nuclear waste isn't safe, I don't care who you "dispose" of it, nuclear waste is not safe.

  40. I misread it, I apologize for that. Meltdowns don't happen often, yes that's true…but they still happen. This can be tremendously horrific, and entire cities can be unlivable. The only nuclear reactor we need is 93 million miles away at the center of the solar system

  41. Its still quite naive to think that meltdowns won't happen even under strict regulation. Too much of a risk, nuclear waste is hell. There's better ways to harness energy. Fusion vs Fission…both nuclear….don't know what your point is there. Study tesla and you'll find out energy is infinite

  42. Alright, i'll let you believe that if regulated, no nuclear facility could have any problems or risk of a meltdown whatsoever. Fission is better than coal and oil, sure…but its no silver bullet. I referred to nuclear reactors…the sun is a nuclear reactor..even though it does the opposite of what man made ones currently do. Derp.
    Tesla was obviously being relative. Our needs relative to the amount of energy is the universe is essentially infinite. Even just the solar system…

  43. Your replacing one type of pollution with another for starters, there are far cleaner solutions that people should invest money in, nuclear reactors are NEVER fool hardy and there will always be a risk no matter what, whether it be an attack, an earthquake or sabotage. When it goes wrong it goes wrong in such a bad way ruining huge areas of land if not whole counties, killing people in the most horrific ways. I understand peoples thinking, but there are far better ways to cure global warming.

  44. Sabotage really. Of course yes don't deny it's a possibility stop pretending these things couldn't happen because the fact is they could. Sea levels are rising and allot of the nuclear power plants are by the sea. In japan look what the tsnami did, that land won't be inhabitable for another 50 years. That's not even the worst that could happen. I can't be bothered to argue really, you say that I have no idea what i'm talking about and yet your argument to sabotage was 'really?'

  45. Look nuclear power stations would last for a very long time, you can't predict what the situation would be like in the future. What i'm getting at is that there is a huge number of things that could go wrong in the lifespan of all the nuclear power plants in the world. It takes just ONE to go wrong and for people to die and areas to be polluted so that it is uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Nuclear waste has a half life of sometimes millions of years, it's like pushing dirt under a rug.

  46. Yes there could be tornadoes that wipe out wind farms, but if a tornado hit a nuclear power plant the results would be catastrophic. Chernobyl is not going to be safe for 600 years, people visit it yes but never live there. The thing is was it worth 985,000 lives? Ok I agree as do the corporations in charge that nuclear safety has been improved. But look at Fukashima, look at the us nuclear power industry that is totally unregulated. Look tinyurl(DOT)com/nxtwkm2

  47. Well everyone knows what voting republican or democrat will get you, more status quo, more of the same ol show. Im amazed how supportive people are for the two main parties that dont give a damn about them. We need something different.

  48. That's that problem. We are the problem. We make mistakes. That why nuclear energy is bad. We aren't perfect. I'm not anti nuclear power. I'm just stating that people are the problem with it. We can make all the safety equipment and whatnots. Someone along the lines will make an accident.

  49. Well I would totally vote green, I totally share its view on most policies, but I will never vote green because they will take my guns.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *