"What do you mean, I couldn't be President, of the United States of America? Tell me something, it's still 'we the people', right? If there's a new way I'll be the first in line, but, it better work this time. Can you put a price on peace?" --
Megadeth,
Peace Sells... but who's buying?---
So, it seems Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader will be the front-runners for the Green Party Presidential ticket in 2008.
Awesome.
Last month,
Cynthia amassed 5 dozen people to hear her announce her candidacy for the Presidency. After her speech, she was asked about Barack Obama and she brought up the FBI's COINTELPRO program, seemingly implying that Obama is a government plant in the conspiracy against black America. "We have to be careful with the black people who are put before us by the media," she said.
For his part,
Ralph Nader recently spoke at Boston University, and chided B.U. students for their apathy. Nader considers apathy to be the biggest political crisis facing Americans today. He also gave a lecture to the students on how to be a "skilled voter".
Here's a question:
How 'bout being a skilled candidate, Nader? Have you ever given that a thought? Have you ever done anything as a presidential candidate to break through "the apathy" (in a positive way)? Precisely what have you done for the Green movement?
Nader says "he will run in 2008 if he is convinced... that he would be able to raise $10 million over the course of the campaign" in order to get his name on the vast majority of state ballots. Why? So he can run another vanity campaign and get one or two percent of the General Election vote in a lot of states? Is that the best use of $10 million bucks?
You know, if Nader ever furnished a campaign plan to clear the 5% mark in national polls-- much less the 10% barrier-- I would take his complaints about the structure of televised Presidential debates more seriously. Currently, candidates need to poll 15 percent nationally to get into the debates like Perot and Stockman did in 1992.
Similarly, while Nader is complaining about the political apathy of young people, a Democratic candidate named Obama is inspiring young people, and finding ways to bring them into the process in record numbers. But I guess he's a government plant, so his "cult" of young supporters don't count. I guess we'll just have to wait until Nader formally tosses his hat into the race, so we can see what true Ralphmentum is all about. (Here's a tip, Ralph: learn to use a computer. Today's apathetic kids are fond of them, and-- like your ego-- computers are here to stay. Al "not green enough" Gore's internets are not a passing fad.)
Jeez. And people think the major parties have problems attracting good candidates.
How many bloggers on my blogroll voted for Nader at one time or another? A shocking proportion. Nader is very comfortable on the periphery. He has no desire to engage in a way that will succeed politically. If he did run in a risky, creative fashion that made waves-- like, say, Ron Paul-- Nader might actually
get his message out to people who haven't already heard it. But Nader doesn't want to do that. He doesn't want to face the massive, unrelenting
scrutiny that would accompany a candidate leading a true movement with political potential. Nader takes potshots at the Pragmatic Left from a safe distance, being
assisted by the GOP, without taking the necessary political risks that would imperil his personal reputation. He's not in the game to win. He's not in it to TRY to win. He's in it for himself, period. If he really wanted to see his (laudable) "message" succeed politically, he would put it into the hands of a talented successor. He'd stop being a perennial candidate, and recruit some new faces. Nader's history of activism, and his policy agenda are now being overshadowed by his chronic, pointless Presidential campaigns. (And for the record, Nader's longtime activism is probably
overrated by both his supporters
and detractors.)
Some time ago,
Jeffrey alerted us to an unwelcome
article about Ralph Nader's perpetual presidential vanity campaign. It begins:
George DeCarlo of Berkeley Heights, chair of the [NJ] State Green Party, says it’s likely Princeton graduate and public advocate Ralph Nader will again be the Green Party’s nominee for president in 2008, with former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia as the party’s nominee for vice president.
Looks like that prediction will hold up.
One obvious question for DeCarlo is why should progressives support Nader and not U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic candidate for president whose views on the War in Iraq, labor and trade, the environment and healthcare are similar to Nader’s?
And why should they back the Green Party when Nader’s vote share in 2000 drained votes away from Democratic Presidential candidate and environmental champion Al Gore, who was eventually bumped in a Florida cliffhanger by a U.S. Supreme court decision?
DeCarlo remains convinced the Dems are no better than the GOP, and says Bill Clinton was worse than Bush in some ways as a president and essentially a failure, at least in terms of what DeCarlo sees as Clinton’s finger in the wind approach to leadership.
"Clinton killed more people in Iraq by the sanctions he opposed [sic] on that country," says DeCarlo. "All this business about Bush being an incompetent failure, an idiot and a dope - it’s nonsense. Bush has done everything he said he was going to do."
What bunk. In 1999 Bush said he wouldn't use American troops for nation-building. After 9/11 he said he would get Bin Laden, and then in 2005 he promised to "do what it takes" to rebuild New Orleans. None of those important commitments have been fulfilled. Yet DeCarlo claims Bush has consistently kept all his promises. Then DeCarlo claims that Clinton "killed more people in Iraq" than Bush did, and was "essentially a failure" despite the fact that during Clinton's term 23 million jobs were created, the working class enjoyed real wage gains for the first time in decades, the budget was balanced, and some
bona fide liberals were appointed to the Supreme Court.
But the Greens continue to argue that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, or between Clinton and Bush, or between Gore and Bush, or between Kerry and Bush. They are heavily invested in clouding those distinctions. If you honestly believe there is no difference between, say, Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer, fine. Then use this argument to vote Green. And if you believe that no matter how radicalized the Bush administration becomes, that the Dems are equally as bad, if not worse... then please use this argument to vote Green. But let me just submit that this is shoddy, uncritical thinking. Certainly, there are not enough significant differences between the parties, but that doesn't mean they are equally as bad from a progressive's standpoint.
It's easy to be ideologically pure when you have no intention of getting more than 2% of the vote. It's easy to criticize Douchey Dems for their lack of courage, when they are making compromises to assemble a majority coalition of different factions. If Greens honestly believe Dems are just as oppositional to their agenda as Goopers, then they should vote Green. However, if they think Dems might pass more of their agenda than the Goopers, it might be wise to strategically assist the Dems at certain times.
For example, look at the razor tight Virginia Senate Race of 2006. Sen Jim Webb won by 9,000 votes, despite the presence of a Green Party candidate. Luckily for Webb, the Green candidate gave him a quasi-endorsement just before election day, and he barely beat presidential wannabe George "makaka" Allen. Not only did that strategic endorsement help tip the race, but it helped tip the entire Senate to the Democrats. Similarly, Nader could've thrown some support to Gore in crucial battleground states like Florida in 2000. It would've been easy for him to do. Knowing that the election would be close, he could've made a deal. But that would've forced Nader to sacrifice a smidgeon of ideological purity, and a helping of ego, so it was a complete non-starter. Al "Earth in the Balance" Gore just wasn't "Green" enough for Nader. He was just as bad as Bush. Recent history proves otherwise.
Nader and McKinney make a big deal about how the 2000 elections were stolen. But why should they care? Gore and Bush were equally as bad, right? So what's the difference? [Btw, isolating one "reason" as to why Gore "lost" the absurdly close 2000 elections is simplistic thinking. There were many "reasons", any one of which could be viewed as decisive given the microscopic difference in Florida (among other states). When one points to one "reason" for the results, it reveals more about the person doing the arguing than the historical reality. "Al Gore lost because [insert pet reason]" is never an illuminating formulation. But that's a discussion for another day.]
So, once again, Ralph "more choices, more voices" Nader is running for President. And so is Cynthia McKinney. The Greens have found two people who know the answer to every problem*, except for how to grow their voter base. The death of apathy is at hand.
---
* just ask them!Labels: Elections and Campaigns
27 Comments:
Marry me.
Amen, brother.
I'm not a big fan of Cynthia McKinney but she will get press, a lot of it negative.
She was reelected in Georgia by repeatedly using racial politics in her minority district, much like we see in city politics here, something that won't work for the Greens.
Me first! (j/k I love my wife)
But seriously, this post was 100% correct. I often talk about the left cutting of their nose to spite their faces and this is another example of it.
As James Carville stated on Tulane's campus last year, Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love.
We have so many people who are in love with the idea of a woman president or a black president that there was actual GUILT in the eyes of people who supported anyone but Hillary or Obama. (I was reminded of this yesterday when CBS replayed the words of a woman at the Iowa caucuses who said she felt GUILTY for supporting Edwards because he was a white man.) Nobody should have guilt for supporting the candidate they feel is the best to lead this country (or at the least, the candidate who is the best to beat the Republicans).
But with people like DeCarlo, who are so closed minded when it comes to who is a "real liberal" and who is just a Republican in liberal clothing, it is no wonder why we often are able to grasp defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Nader, for no evident reason, has an ego the size of Montana.
When people here talk about a multi-party system, they don't realize that the US was set up to be a two party system. France, for example, was set up to be a multi-party system.
Nader, if he runs, I can assure you will do but one thing: siphon votes from the Democratic nominee. Period.
OK, I'll post a Devil's or maybe even Satan's advocate comment to get the ball rolling...and why the hell not, given that yeah, I was a Nader voter in 2000.
That said, I signed up for the vote trade or whatever it was, and would have pulled the lever for Gore if the Gret Stet hadn't been painted red/ceded well before election day even rolled around...which meant that I would also have voted for...Joe Lieberman (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little). Thanks Al, and, more sincerely, thanks for FINALLY dumping the Clintonistic DLC/Republican-Wing-of-the-Democratic Party stuff...wish you'd done that, though, in 2000, instead of 2003.
In other words, my vote was "wasted" regardless of "choice," given that no, it didn't make a goddamned bit of difference. And, just once, I figured I'd go ahead and waste my vote on someone I actually agreed with on policy issues, as opposed to a lesser-of-evils.
That said, I lesser-of-evil'ed in 2004...hell of a lot of good it did here (Bush 57-Kerry 42), and I'll even lesser-of-evil this go round should it be McCain or Romney vs. Hillary.
In contrast, I'd vote FOR Obama, and it'd be nice if the people actually deciding on the nominee would take that into consideration (yeah, in my old age, I'm a bit cynical about just how much democracy either party is particularly comfortable with...the other day I described the difference to a friend as that between corporate control and corporate dominance--guess I'll settle for control).
Anyway...back to Nader and his Satanic Advocacy Requests. Trying not to make this an essay, my personal opinion is why the hell worry about him? I doubt seriously he's got anywhere near significant political clout these days, rendering him just another small party candidate like the Libertarian, Socialist, Constitution, and so on parties that also field candidates...oh, sure, he generates a bit more press, but that doesn't translate into votes. Democratic candidate have faced far stronger opposition from the left in times past, and easily handled the challenge (specifically Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, also Henry Wallace). Hell, by opting for a third-party approach, you could say Nader's doing the Democratic Party a favor: for all the scrutiny that he apparently can't stand (and I mean that sincerely--one of Ralph's MANY big flaws is that he's got more than a bit of a secrecy/paranoia thing, although being tailed for years, and never being certain just what someone's ulterior motive might be, I guess, can do that to a person)--anyway, for all his flaws, a vigorous campaign on his part in the Democratic Party could REALLY throw a monkey wrench into the process, given that the corporatist, "conventional wisdom," DLC types might well bolt or at least become even more insufferable Blue Dogs rather than give up ANY ground to progressive types.
Actually, the real "problem" I see isn't with Nadar, or other minor party candidates, but the cobbled together, top down, money-centric, biased towards two-parties-and-no-more nominating and electoral process, from the start a very poor compromise, now truly a joke...I mean, geez, these days the only "benefit" I note is that, every four years, an economic bump is generated first in small town Iowa and New Hampshire, followed by various "media markets." By the time the election actually rolls around, the potential for any sort of issue-based decision has long been ceded to the carnival of nonsense like flag burning or gay marriage, played out in fifty mini-elections.
Aside: as far as the 2000 election goes, if even a third of the hollering about Nadar had instead been devoted to countering some of the REAL ugliness--like the deliberate and fraudulent disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of non-felons in Florida, the centerist model of Al Gore might be triangulating to this day, with Joe Lieberman in strong position to be his successor.
I mean, geez, if it's going to be a clown show, why NOT let Nadar be one of the clowns, especially now that Edwards has dropped out (and from what I've heard/read, Edwards dropping out was a major consideration for Nadar's probable decision to jump in)...
The death of apathy is at hand.
Ooh goodie now something else fun is dead. I remember right after 9-11 when they decided irony was dead too. That was also quite a hoot.
There must be something about these "movement defenses of the ruling political structure that always generate a gleeful "killing" of the most popular modes of dissent.
The problem with third parties in general, and I also think the Democratic party in Louisiana, is that if you want to build (or rebuild) a party you have to start from the bottom up and not the top down.
For some reason, Green Party people (and also the Democratic Party of Louisiana) seem to think that victories at higher levels will trickle down to lower levels of government. However, just like trickle down economics, trickle down politics doesn't work either.
Third parties need to build from the ground up and work on building a presence in Congress first. Otherwise, it is possible that a third party candidate could get the most electoral college votes, the most popular vote, not get the required number of electoral votes and have the party who controls Congress decide the Presidency.
Michael: Why worry about Nader?
Because Nader got 97,421 Florida votes in an election that Bush "won" by 537.
Jeffrey: the "apathy" comment was purely sarcastic, since Nader had said that it was one of the biggest problems in America. (One that he presumes to attempt to fix with another stale candidacy.)
Oh okay. It seems then that irony is only dead amongst those who do not get the joke.
You see how it's easy to make such a mistake given the proclivity for "post-partisan" activist cheerleading one finds in much of the pro-Obama literature these days.
Nader, like a lot of people, believes that when people don't do what he thinks they should they are apathetic.
Daniel--yes, Nader got 97,471 votes...Harry Browne got not quite 16,500, and even Pat Buchanan notched almost 17,500.
Also, several thousand people were wrongly disenfranchised, deliberately and fraudulently, by the State of Florida.
Even with all that, it took quite a bit of ugliness on the part of Jeb, Katherine Harris, James Baker, SCOTUS, PLUS the some rather poor strategic thinking from Gore's legal brain trust to throw the election to Shrub.
Blaming Nader for ALL of that is a little too easy and convenient.
Besides, Gore WON the vote...I mean, damnit, maybe instead of blaming Nader, we should look at the system that ALLOWS the election of someone who LOST the vote. Florida? What about The United States?
Earlier today, in a similar vein, Glenn Greenwald noted that while the Bush administration has made a mockery of Constitutional government, it's not like the Democratic Party has done a whole lot to oppose Team Bush ugliness...even now that they're in the majority. Hell, Harry Reid cowers at the mere threat of a GOP filibuster...and then turns around and tells Chris Dodd he must follow the Senate rules to the letter when he announces his intention to hold the floor.
What sort of "alternative" is that?
All the same, as you'll note, I'm favoring corporate control over corporate dominance, AND for most of my life have opted for a "lesser-of-evils" decision.
And I'm sick and tired of evil always getting its way.
I'll fess up to voting for Nader in 2000, I also voted for Barry Commoner in 1980 -- the first presidential election I voted in. In both cases, La. was going to go Repub. no matter how I voted, so I figured enough votes for an environmentalist 3rd party might push the Dems that way. I can't for the life of me figure out swing stater voters who voted for Nader in 2000.
Seems like you're missing something that I haven't heard anybody bring up. It's looking like America's going to increase its reliance on nuclear energy, I'd don't advocate it, but I'd bet on it. Conservative pundits love to bring up the French reliance on nuclear power in some kind of juvenile "gotcha" based on the fact that liberals supposedly idolize the French. The best I ever hear TV liberals come up with is an equally pointless "gotcha" about the irony of conservatives wanting to follow the French example. I've yet to hear a single one mention that it's one thing to have nuclear power plants in a country where government regulation is considered necessary, maybe a necessary evil, but necessary; it's another thing entirely to have nuclear power in a country where government regulation is just considered evil.
One of the two parties has cut back on OSHA, EPA, and just about every other kind of inspection whenever it's gained the upper hand. Now the leaders of that same party are making a renewed push for nuclear energy and "clean coal." Any Green, or anybody else, who thinks that there's no difference between the party of less workplace regulation + more nuclear power and the Democrats, flawed as the Democrats are, is crazy.
The argument that other fringe candidates got votes in Florida, too, so why not blame them is spurious. Those candidates had hardline fringe backers who probably would not have voted, or voted for another nut, had their nut failed to get on the ballot.
Nader voters, according to exit polling, would have gone primarily for Gore. Not all or them -- remember that Nader had strong backing from the Republican machine and some of his votes no doubt were GOP spoilers -- but more than enough to have made a difference.
Protest votes, IMO, are stupid. If you feel strongly about a candidate or an issue or a position, then work like hell to get your guy elected. Vote for Norm Thomas in the primary if you want (he's dead, but he had class). Just don't toss away your vote when the chips are down and the race is close.
If you really want to see a third or fourth party, then, as Daniel says, start from the ground up and GET PEOPLE TO VOTE. Nader was kinda right about apathy. If more people would take ownership of the process, it would make the possibility of competitive third-party candidates much more likely. When more than half of eligible voters don't bother to vote, why should anyone care what they think about the party system?
I don't think the argument about minor candidates is spurious...besides, at least some of the fringe/nut backers in Florida (Buchanan "voters") weren't, thanks to the butterfly ballot.
Again, though, the real issue is and should be the ridiculous, arcane, and stupid method nominating and electing candidates for national office. Nader would have made ZERO difference if it'd been a national election.
Nader would also likely have made ZERO difference IF the Florida Democratic Party hadn't ignored the Rethuglican-inspired voter purge, which cost them dearly. And, again, less than astute legal decisions taken by David Boies, et al (especially the decision to contest only a few selected counties/districts) didn't help at all.
Blaming Nader for that is like trying to cure the symptoms and not the cause.
Straying from the point just a bit: one thing I'm excited about by the Obama candidacy is that he has the potential, symbolic or not, to do a couple of thing vis-a-vis "the math" that could utterly change the dynamic of the electoral process. First, he evidently brings in voters who otherwise DON'T vote (and I'm skeptical about the exit polling of Nader voters: maybe they said they would've voted for Gore, but it's just as possible they would've stayed home)...he also turns the "logic" of career jerks like Mudcat Saunders on its head: a winning Democratic coalition CAN be forged in the South without having to pander to the "NASCAR dads," provided that, well, progressive whites are willing to accept a subordinate role, i.e., we will be the less important element of the coalition.
Michael: Where did I ever claim to have blamed nader for "all of it".
I am well versed in all of the goings on in the 2000 election. I sat down and looked at the election code with a fine toothed comb so when Republicans would parrot Sean Hannity and ask things like "why does Gore get to choose which precincts should be sampled" I could respond with "because that is what the Florida Election Code says should happen".
I know very well that the scrub list had a "wide net" cast that created many false positives who had their right to vote taken away because their last name and zip code may have matched a felon. I know that the Secretary of State, who was also the head of the campaign to elect Bush in Florida, did not take the appropriate actions to notify people removed from the voter lists that they had actually been removed.
I know all about the fact that the florida election code, in the contest phase, allows the judge in question to determine whatever remedy he deemed appropriate and he was well within his powers to demand a manual recount of the entire state and that the Surpreme Court blocked that recount from happening.
But this discussion was not about scrub lists, butterfly ballots, conflicts of interests, or Conservative candidates who did not take away votes from Al Gore.
This discussion was about the question you posed as to why we should worry about Nader. I answered that question. And while we should not let Nader be used as an excuse to forget about the fraud that took place in Florida... we should also not forget that a Nader candidacy means potential less votes for Democrats which can allow Republicans to win in the future.
Ideally, Democrats should take the time to address the issues that would cause people to vote for Nader over a Democrat causing a Nader presidency to no longer be necessary. However, Nader voters should also be less willing to cut their noses off to spite their faces and realize that in swing states, it is very dangerous to cast your vote in such a way that would allow a Republican to win.
Daniel--
As noted in my first comment, the argument was in the spirit of Satan's advocate and hopefully is understood as such.
Anyway--in my mind, 2008 is a different election, and the conditions that generated the level of support for Nader in 2000 no longer exist. Worrying about the votes he might take consumes time and resources that are better spent on rallying the Democratic base, who will vote their interest...that is, if someone speaks to their interest.
On the other hand, if, as Lawrence O'Donnell put it so clearly and succinctly in a PBS bio of Nader, progressives are told by the Democratic Party to stick it, you eventually HAVE to consider alternatives...because as you keep getting taken for granted, it becomes easier and easier for "your party" to sell you out (often for a cheaper and cheaper price each time).
I took a quick look for his exact quote: "I didn't listen or have to listen to anything on the left while I was working in the Democratic Party -- because the left had nowhere to go."
Give O'Donnell points for honesty. But that hardly represents my interests. That's pulling the rug out from under me.
And while I'd like to think that, had Gore won the election--oh, wait, that's right, he DID win the election, but an extraordinarily non-democratic process seated Shrub--anyway, sure, I'd like to think that we'd be better off or at least not any worse...but who knows what would've actually happened? A Gore presidency would almost certainly been subject to a rabid, foaming attack from the right that would've made Clinton's impeachment look like a pleasant snack of tea and scones. How would Gore have responded--with the progressive stance he adopted in 2003, or the righward veer he adopted in 2000 (exemplified by his choosing of...Joe Lieberman to be his running mate)?
I absolutely believe that the two Democratic candidates are speaking in the best interests of the left... or at least speaking in better interests of the left than the Republican candidates will.
I mean, I really don't like either of the plans presented by the candidates last night on providing universal health care. I don't think either plan effectively solves the problem. However, I would rather a Democrat win and come close to universal health care than have a Republican win and rejcect universal care as "socialist" even though we all pay for it in the long run anyway.
I just have seen, far too often, people on the left more than willing to cut of their nose to spite their face because the Democratic candidate is not "perfect", some other candidate matches their ideal, and that vote enables the Republican to win. I see this coming in the 2008 Senate race with "progressive" Democrats already attacking Landrieu. People can call themselves progressive all they want, but if their idealism leads to a Republican winning, how is that progress?
And regardless of whether we got "2000 chosing Lieberman" Gore or "2003 progressive Gore", either one would be better than "gay hating embryo loving (and warmongering)" Bush.
To post one last comment--despite my lack of enthusiasm for Mary Landrieu, she'd have to do an awful lot to lose my vote--an awful lot...and, for the record, it'd be the same with Hillary Clinton, if she's the nominee.
On the other hand--as purely "symbolic" an Obama candidacy/administration would be--I say this based on the mostly centrist positions he's taken since his election (which I wouldn't expect to change all that much if he becomes president)--the evidence suggests he's inspiring people to vote who haven't in the past. That could change the electoral dynamic dramatically and positively, and that's why I'd vote FOR him, instead of voting against Romney or McCain (presuming one or the other gets the Repub nod).
While I doubt any faction of any party would deliberately throw away votes, it seems to me that the DLC faction of the Democratic Party pretty much gave up on huge swaths of the electorate, focusing instead on a narrow-based formula for "victory" that, again, worked in 2000 (except for the arcane election rules)...it almost worked in 2004...but it's still a really, really bad strategy...unless the goal is Republican-Lite. But why take Lite when you can drink the real Kool-Aid?
Oh, and one more thing: while of course I have no idea what did it, and no evidence, I wonder if Gore's renaissance was based on the election...maybe the ugly and underserved slap in the face made him realize that trying to triangulate with rabid Republican weasels was a losing game anyway, so why not stand up for your principles? At least, it looks like that's what he's doing, and yeah, I could easily have lived with that, despite the fact that Gore isn't exactly a flaming librul, but, IMHO, a pretty much middle of the road politician, although with perhaps a larger understanding of what being a responsible adult means in this day and age.
Late to the coming, but when it comes to Nader, I get a little fierce.
I'm still new to the political arena; I was barely old enough to vote in the last presidential election, but I was actually pretty zealous about it. Read books/newspaper articles/magazine clippings on all of the candidates, even the ones that didn't have a shot at winning, including Nader. I've been doing the same for this election, reading blogs zealously as I scoop up second-hand copies of books on the candidates.
When I was growing up, I was always encouraged to "vote for the best candidate". Of course, that's why in high school, I voted for the responsible intelligent student for student council president instead of the one with the funny campaign speech, even though the one with the funny campaign speech was more likely to win. Sure, she wasn't going to win anyway, but I couldn't bear to vote for a subpar candidate.
It's the same with the presidential elections.
New Orleans has been a mere blip on the radar for some of these candidates; I've only heard the Gulf Coast mentioned a handful of times in any of their speeches, and that's usually only when they're living in the affected areas. None of them (except for perhaps Clinton, who actually proposed and sponsored a lot of Gulf Coast legislation immediately after the storm--I think a lot of it had to do with her and Landrieu being bosom buddies) don't exactly have a track record for giving a damn about the area. Sure, they may have tossed in a vote to toss us some money, but when have you honestly seen any one of these candidates honestly, candidly worried about coastal erosion? What about the wetlands? Has anyone mentioned better levees recently?
Nader does have a track record for that, and back in 2004, even before the storm, I was concerned about these issues; I had taken an Environmental History course over at UNO and was struck with fear at all the possibilities. With the environment as my number one priority, I took a look at all the candidates and voted for the one who best represented my views (even though others had similar concerns about the environment)--and that happened to be Ralph Nader.
It's not a popular opinion, but I'm one to believe that a vote should not be given away. If you want it, you have to earn it. Should I just throw my vote to the democrats because "at least they're better than the republicans"? I don't think so. When the democrats begin to pander to the ideas and concerns I have, then and only then will I vote for them.
But not a second sooner. I shouldn't have to "settle".
T., did you give up on blogging altogether? There's no link on your sign in.
I understand what you say about the Democrats needing to earn your vote, but I think the difference between flawed muddling through and actively f***ing things up even worse is too big to ignore. One thing I'll add to being scared by politicians who talk about cutting government regulation at the same time that they talk about increased reliance on nuclear power is that the same party that cut back on mine safety inspection also talks about more coal use.
Even if you look at the two parties as competing interest groups, how difficult a choice is it between the interest group that wants to stop wasting lives and money in Iraq and the interest group that doesn't?
In the 2000 presidential election, Nader was arguably the most preferred candidate and might have won if the election had been conducted under a majority preference system instead of the Electoral College plurality system. An analysis of the National Election Study exit poll data by Harvard political scientist Barry Burden showed that only 9% of the people who thought Nader was the best candidate actually voted for him. If people had not voted strategically for their lesser evil or stayed home because the polls showed he would not win, Nader would have had over 30 million votes instead of 2.9 million, making it a close three-way race and might have won the election, especially if he had been allowed into the debates.
Woulda shoulda coulda.... it doesn't matter what system Nader may have won under. If we are playing chess, don't complain that you can't pass go and collect $200. Play the game by the rules, or work to change the rules before you play.
The only thing that I'd add to what Daniel Z. just said is that kind of polls cited by Trey P. are always misleading. Longshot candidates, even ones like Nader who already have name recognition, are identified with one or two ideas rather than evaluated as potential executives. They never face any real scrutiny or negative campaigning; the little bit of criticism they face is of "wasted vote" rather than the "lousy president" variety.
nike air max 90
nike air max 95
nike shoes
nike air
nike air shoes
nike air max tn
nike air rift
nike shox r4
sports shoes
nike air rifts
nike air rift trainer
nike air max 360
nike shox nz
puma cat
air max trainers
mens nike air max
nike air
puma mens shoes
puma shoes
puma speed
nike shoes air max
nike shoes shox
air shoes
Lucyliu IS Lucyliu
nike shoe cart
puma future
levis jeans
nike rift shoes
cheap nike air rifts
bape shoes
cheap puma
nike rift
jeans shop
diesel jeans
