A Political Nightmare
Or: TRS: Flip-Flopper
It's time for me to talk about the Ralph Nader factor.
If you click the link, you'll learn of the connection between funders of the Swift Boat Veterans & my former favorite presidential candidate, Ralph Nader.
I voted for Ralph in 1996, and again in 2000. I pestered a lot of you with e-mails encouraging you to consider voting for him. I still believe in what he tried to do, and I don't regret backing him back then for an instant. In fact, I was looking forward to his continued efforts to build the Green Party this year. Al Gore never won my vote. You can blame Nader for Gore's defeat, but Nader was one of many factors, the first of which is the fact that Gore failed to carry his home state: if he hadn't fallen so far out of touch with the people of Tennessee, the people that sent him to the Senate in the first place, he would be president today. And do you think that there were 600 or more Cuban Floridians still pissed off about Elian Gonzales? Remember him? Like I said, many factors, and most of them weren't actually INCREASING the level of political discussion in this country. When they counted all of the votes in Florida after the Supreme Court selected Bush, Gore had the most votes in the state! This isn't Nader's fault.
But, why am I not supporting him now? Well, obviously, I am a wishy-washy flip-flopper!
Actually, in a way, I do still support him. In the sense that I feel like he should be in the debates, and should be on the ballot. I know it might mean the difference between a Bush victory and a Kerry victory, but Nader's candidacy is legitimate. He raises some of the most valid questions being raised on the campaign trail. Do I want him on the ballot? I know it would eliminate some confusion if he wasn't, but yes, if he earns a place on the ballot, then he's earned a place on the ballot. Conversations to the contrary, to me, border on unAmerican! You can't extend democracy by limiting choice this way. Ever hear of a write-in candidate? We can vote for just about ANYBODY. Certain friends of mine acted as if my vote BELONGED to Al Gore in 2000! Sorry, it's gotta be earned.
But in '96 and '00, Nader was building the Green Party. It was about creating a GENUINE third political party in this country. If Nader represented the Green Party this year, I WOULD BE VOTING FOR HIM!
But, it appears that Nader's strategy has bitten him in the ass. All he can really do now is spoil a Kerry victory, and is not contributing to the discourse in a substantially constructive way. I rankled at suggestions in 2000 that his candidacy was about his ego, because it wasn't. We were party-building.
By abandoning the Greens, Nader shows that this largely IS about his ego. The worse thing about this is that he's undermining the issues he (and I) champion. His ideas are regularly held up to redicule, and Republicans are just licking their chops at any success he will enjoy, because they see it as insuring Bush's victory. Hence, the backers of the Swift Boat Veterans for... are providing Nader's campaign with cash.
I see this presumption as a fallacy. It may prove true, yes, but consider the following, if there's a large Nader turn-out:
A) Nader's voters are NOT strictly left-wingers. 40% of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore, but 20% would've gone to Bush, and the rest would not have voted at all.
B) If 80% of Nader's voters are left-wing, and 40% would not vote otherwise, the left stands to gain in ALL of the other elected offices, state and national! The Republicans could lose their hold on the Senate and Congress if there's a big enough Nader turn-out.
While Nader's campaign could help the Democrats, his candidacy does hurt John Kerry more than Dubya. But that isn't why I am voting for Kerry.
I'm voting for Kerry because he has earned my vote. I am also voting for him because I agree with almost everything he says, especially regarding the work we have to do in Afghanistan, and Iraq. That's if he has a chance to do ANYTHING about Iraq, as it may fall into chaos before he gets the chance to even takes his oath of office...
I'd talk more about JK, but I already have, and I have more yet to say. But, later.
It's time for me to talk about the Ralph Nader factor.
If you click the link, you'll learn of the connection between funders of the Swift Boat Veterans & my former favorite presidential candidate, Ralph Nader.
I voted for Ralph in 1996, and again in 2000. I pestered a lot of you with e-mails encouraging you to consider voting for him. I still believe in what he tried to do, and I don't regret backing him back then for an instant. In fact, I was looking forward to his continued efforts to build the Green Party this year. Al Gore never won my vote. You can blame Nader for Gore's defeat, but Nader was one of many factors, the first of which is the fact that Gore failed to carry his home state: if he hadn't fallen so far out of touch with the people of Tennessee, the people that sent him to the Senate in the first place, he would be president today. And do you think that there were 600 or more Cuban Floridians still pissed off about Elian Gonzales? Remember him? Like I said, many factors, and most of them weren't actually INCREASING the level of political discussion in this country. When they counted all of the votes in Florida after the Supreme Court selected Bush, Gore had the most votes in the state! This isn't Nader's fault.
But, why am I not supporting him now? Well, obviously, I am a wishy-washy flip-flopper!
Actually, in a way, I do still support him. In the sense that I feel like he should be in the debates, and should be on the ballot. I know it might mean the difference between a Bush victory and a Kerry victory, but Nader's candidacy is legitimate. He raises some of the most valid questions being raised on the campaign trail. Do I want him on the ballot? I know it would eliminate some confusion if he wasn't, but yes, if he earns a place on the ballot, then he's earned a place on the ballot. Conversations to the contrary, to me, border on unAmerican! You can't extend democracy by limiting choice this way. Ever hear of a write-in candidate? We can vote for just about ANYBODY. Certain friends of mine acted as if my vote BELONGED to Al Gore in 2000! Sorry, it's gotta be earned.
But in '96 and '00, Nader was building the Green Party. It was about creating a GENUINE third political party in this country. If Nader represented the Green Party this year, I WOULD BE VOTING FOR HIM!
But, it appears that Nader's strategy has bitten him in the ass. All he can really do now is spoil a Kerry victory, and is not contributing to the discourse in a substantially constructive way. I rankled at suggestions in 2000 that his candidacy was about his ego, because it wasn't. We were party-building.
By abandoning the Greens, Nader shows that this largely IS about his ego. The worse thing about this is that he's undermining the issues he (and I) champion. His ideas are regularly held up to redicule, and Republicans are just licking their chops at any success he will enjoy, because they see it as insuring Bush's victory. Hence, the backers of the Swift Boat Veterans for... are providing Nader's campaign with cash.
I see this presumption as a fallacy. It may prove true, yes, but consider the following, if there's a large Nader turn-out:
A) Nader's voters are NOT strictly left-wingers. 40% of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore, but 20% would've gone to Bush, and the rest would not have voted at all.
B) If 80% of Nader's voters are left-wing, and 40% would not vote otherwise, the left stands to gain in ALL of the other elected offices, state and national! The Republicans could lose their hold on the Senate and Congress if there's a big enough Nader turn-out.
While Nader's campaign could help the Democrats, his candidacy does hurt John Kerry more than Dubya. But that isn't why I am voting for Kerry.
I'm voting for Kerry because he has earned my vote. I am also voting for him because I agree with almost everything he says, especially regarding the work we have to do in Afghanistan, and Iraq. That's if he has a chance to do ANYTHING about Iraq, as it may fall into chaos before he gets the chance to even takes his oath of office...
I'd talk more about JK, but I already have, and I have more yet to say. But, later.
posted by TRS at 10/16/2004 11:02:00 AM
2 Comments:
Nice one. I agree with you 99.999 percent. My only note: we can vote for ANYBODY! Not "just about" ANYBODY! ;) I wrote in a vote last election, and this lady started saying, 'here's the list of write-in candidates', and I explained that my candidate wasn't on that list. She about had a hissy fit, drawing everyone's attention. I started to defend my right, but luckily I didn't have to as another poll person said that I could write in anyone I wanted to. You've read about people voting for Mickey Mouse, etc. That's how we got Bush in there!
Funny, I voted for Nader in 2000 (as an absentee in FL). But what's ironic is that had I not voted for ralph I probably would have voted for Bush and not Al.
As far as Gore having the most votes, We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I think there would have been a HUGE media circus had Gore actually gotten the votes, but I believe that after the votes were counted bush still won by 537. (I'm sure if the definition of a marked ballot was liberal enough even RALPH nader might have taken florida ...wws)
b
Post a Comment
<< Home