Here he comes to save the day! The savior of election 2008 has announced that he is running for president again; for the 17th time it would seem. Yes, I am speaking about none other than Ralph Nader. Already the Internet is abuzz with the announcement that there is now someone else in this race; anyone else. Those disaffected and disillusioned voices now have an answer when they are asked who they will vote for since they believe everyone in the race is the walking epitome of evil. They will brush off the stale old excuses for why the protest vote makes sense and turn a blind eye to the consequences of their actions. They will even attempt to wrap the flag around themselves and find some sort of patriotic loophole that makes them feel better about their protest vote.
Because you should have no doubt America, all it will be is a protest vote. Ralph Nader will not have the money or access that Obama and McCain will have. He cannot compete and if your synapses are firing, you know this too. I remember the last time people were so apathetic with the state of political affairs that they thought they could afford to mail in their vote in protest. The year was 2000 and the country was enjoying the end of a very prosperous time. We were all a little sickened of the impeachment process and Al Gore left a bad taste in some mouths. He seemed too connected to the scandals they said. Ralph Nader was there then too, running for President as only he can. He sucked off just enough democratic voters to allow George Bush to steal the election. He managed to convince enough disaffected and disillusioned voters that they could afford to cast their vote into protest abyss. He convinced enough spoiled voters that their vote could be casually thrown away without consequence. Well, I am pretty sure we all know how that one turned out.
Only this time, I just do not understand how anyone who has lived through the past eight years can look in the mirror knowing they could allow John McCain to walk into the White House and continue the Bush policies for another four years. I have written about this for the past month now and am still astonished that the apathy for some is outweighing reason and logic. There is absolutely no question that Barack Obama would be infinitely better than John McCain on nearly every subject and policy. Is he the magic bullet? Of course not; no candidate would be. It took along time to ruin this country. It was a methodical destruction of the constitution and our civil liberties. It was a slow descent into the chasm of torture as state policy and wars of choice. It was a deliberative process to wreck the middle class and squeeze them into the working poor through reckless fiscal policies. It was systematic destruction of our environment and erosion of our educational system. These things took a lot of time to ruin and it will take a lot of time to correct. But do not let your apathy confuse you America. It certainly does matter who is in charge of this country come January 2009 and I guarantee you it will NOT be Ralph Nader.
Thus knowing it will be one of two machine bought candidates is not settling well with the progressive movement and I completely share their disappointment. This was not the script we would have written. This is not the hand we were hoping to be dealt. The problem is that some are advocating folding the hand in protest. They had been advocating voting for nobody but now they have their poster-boy for protest in Nader. Substantively, there is no difference between a Nader vote and a no vote. It will amount to nothing and only help John McCain. You see, you can hate the GOP all you want to but you at least have to admire their cohesiveness. Don’t fall for the sucker play being acted around you now with the conservative wing rebelling against McCain. That is nothing more than a ruse to make McCain appear more moderate. No folks, come November I guarantee you that Bill Cunningham and his ilk will NOT be voting for anyone with a (D) next to their name. No; they will vote for McCain in unison. There will be no protest vote from the conservatives or the GOP. They will unite around the hand they have been dealt.
While that is the bad news, the good news is that the interest on the democrat side is far outweighing the republican side. November is setting up nicely for another huge turnout with the majority flocking to Obama. Of course there is still the general election to play out and we are already seeing the attacks on Barack by the GOP. Ultimately, you have to decide what this election represents. You need to seriously consider a McCain presidency. This is a man who joked about and sang about bombing Iran. He is on record as saying we could be in Iraq for another 100 years. He has already embraced the Bush tax cuts and wants to make them permanent. His maverick façade has long since faded into history as nothing but a clever marketing strategy that failed in face of the machine in 2000. He has an 83% conservative rating. Do not be confused America. John McCain is not the most conservative member in the Senate but he is on that side of the aisle. As far as aggressive foreign policy and war, he will be George Bush on steroids. I do not know how much more I can spell it out folks but if he makes into office there will be hundreds of thousands more dead in the desert. The economic death march will also continue and nothing will be changed from the past eight years.
I understand the emotion behind the desire to protest vote. The system is broken; I do not disagree. We need to figure out how to get real campaign finance reform so that third party candidates such as Nader have a level playing field. The two-party system is a cancer eating away at our republic. We need to get corporations out of the political process. These are all macro level issues that need to be addressed after we get to the business of who is running the country for the next four years. You see, the micro level stuff is still pretty important. No matter how frustrated you are, the war is still pretty important. Don’t fall for the ridiculous notion that Obama won’t end the war; he absolutely will. No matter how aggravated you are at the current state of affairs, reversing the consolidation of executive power is still pretty important. So is reversing wiretapping and torture. So are the environment and education in this country. You cannot protest the macro issues without sacrificing the micro issues. You cannot cast your vote for nothing and potentially aid John McCain in finishing the job George Bush started.
I do not dislike Ralph Nader and I wish the state of the country allowed for viable third party candidates. Unfortunately, it does not. Mike Gravel has as much chance as Ralph Nader. There is too much on the line to make the same mistake as 2000 when some thought so little of their vote that they laid the path for the rise of George W. Bush. Sure the Supreme Court anointed him illegally but without Ralph Nader, it never goes to the Supremes. On every serious micro topic facing this nation it is clear that the top priority has to be ensuring we do not wake up in January 2009 with President McCain continuing the fascist and destructive policies of George W. Bush. On every micro issue we need Barack Obama and the margin is not even debatable. It is not even close. Do I think Obama will seriously address the macro problems? Not without some serious community involvement and pressure from progressives across this land. First things first though. Break the apathy America. Ralph Nader has ridden in on his white horse before and swept up your protest votes to the tune of 5%, which normally would have gone to the democrat. We were spoiled in 2000 and thought we could throw our vote away in protest and look what we wrought. Do not make the same mistake again. Play the Obama hand; don’t fold.
Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 40-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.
To me, a protest vote could mean that between all the candidates on the ballot (in this case let's say Obama, McCain, and Nader) if I do not like one I pick one of the three to protest the other two so that the candidate who was the least evil was elected. Really, a protest vote shouldn't even be a term we use because if people wish to protest the election, they should just not vote. But if I vote in this election, it will mean that I am voting for the best of the candidates on the ballot and probably someone I like or admire for their record they have accrued in their service to this country.
Anyways...
“He convinced enough spoiled voters that their vote could be casually thrown away without consequence.”
Spoiled voters? Is that anything like spoiled milk? Do spoiled voters carry a pungent odor?
“Only this time, I just do not understand how anyone who has lived through the past eight years can look in the mirror knowing they could allow John McCain to walk into the White House and continue the Bush policies for another four years.”
I don’t know how anyone could allow Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to walk into the White Hosue and continue the Bush policies for another four years. Yes, Hillary and Barack speak out against them unlike McCain, but has anyone considered that their rhetoric may just be to get votes? If they weren’t good enough to progressives in January when people were set on Kucinich or Edwards, they won’t be good enough in November.
How sad is it that we have to vote for somebody to stop somebody from getting elected when there is somebody in the race worth voting for like Nader or McKinney (they are vying for the Green Party nomination)?
“Substantively, there is no difference between a Nader vote and a no vote. It will amount to nothing and only help John McCain.”
No, it will amount to something. It will send a message to Democrats that if they are not going to oppose the Republican Party than they will lose election. And it will say that we are not choosing benevolent evil over malevolent evil any longer.
“While that is the bad news, the good news is that the interest on the democrat side is far outweighing the republican side. November is setting up nicely for another huge turnout with the majority flocking to Obama.”
This is exactly why progressives should stop whining about Ralph Nader. If Obama is going to be able to take down McCain so handily, why do so many feel like going after people who want to vote for Nader?
"There is too much on the line to make the same mistake as 2000 when some thought so little of their vote that they laid the path for the rise of George W. Bush."
I guess each party is entitled to championing one blatant fallacy. The right gets “they hate us for our freedom.” And the left gets, “Nader gave us eight years of Bush.”
by
Kevin Gosztola (172 articles, 89 quicklinks, 62 diaries, 710 comments)
on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 6:24:43 PM
If you vote for Nader because you feel that there is no difference between Obama/McCain then it is a "protest" vote, whether you like it or not.
I don’t know how anyone could allow Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to walk into the White Hosue and continue the Bush policies for another four years. Yes, Hillary and Barack speak out against them unlike McCain, but has anyone considered that their rhetoric may just be to get votes? If they weren’t good enough to progressives in January when people were set on Kucinich or Edwards, they won’t be good enough in November.
That is not even intellectually honest. There is no way Obama would continue the Bush policies.
How sad is it that we have to vote for somebody to stop somebody from getting elected when there is somebody in the race worth voting for like Nader or McKinney (they are vying for the Green Party nomination)?
It is sad that no 3rd party candidates can realistically compete. I speak about it in this article. Unfortunately, once you realize that, you need to come back to reality and do what is right.
No, it will amount to something. It will send a message to Democrats that if they are not going to oppose the Republican Party than they will lose election. And it will say that we are not choosing benevolent evil over malevolent evil any longer
Sooooo, you screw the country to prove something to the dems, who you think are corrupt anyway. Yeah, that makes alot of sense. And meanwhile, people die becuase of it.
This is exactly why progressives should stop whining about Ralph Nader. If Obama is going to be able to take down McCain so handily, why do so many feel like going after people who want to vote for Nader?
This is why i said "dust off the tired old excuses" This is BS and holds no merit. There is still the vote theft concerns and the point is not about whining. So save your grandstanding please. Do you care at all about people dying? How do you sleep at night?
I guess each party is entitled to championing one blatant fallacy. The right gets “they hate us for our freedom.” And the left gets, “Nader gave us eight years of Bush.”
I wish once there could be some honesty in debate. You cannot refute, do you hear me?? YOU CANNOT REFUTE that if Nader didnt run in 2000 the election never would have went to the supremes. This is not a matter for debate, it is an established FACT.
Try to be honest next time.
by
Anthony Wade (135 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 440 comments)
on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 6:47:13 PM
1) The "Nader stole the election from Gore" myth is just that. It is not an "established fact" at all. It has been proven statistically that that line of thinking is false even assuming Bush won the popular vote which he didn't.
2) You resorted once again, in what seems to be a foregone conclusion with your responses, in a personal attack upon a respondent.
Your comments towards Kevin are very, very ugly.
by
coyote (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments)
on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 7:35:11 PM
LETS BE CLEAR WILY, THE RESPONSE IS IN CAPS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN YOUR TEXT AND MINE. sO DONT TRY YOUR LITTLE LIE ABOUT WHY I AM RESPONDING IN CAPS.
THAT SAID, YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY WILY. YOU HAVE NOW COME INTO MY LAST FOUR THREADS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF STARTING A FIGHT.
1) The "Nader stole the election from Gore" myth is just that. It is not an "established fact" at all. It has been proven statistically that that line of thinking is false even assuming Bush won the popular vote which he didn't.
NICE TRY. I HAVE BEEN ON THIS FAR LONGER THAN YOU. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK AT HOW MANY VOTES NADER GOT IN FLA ALONE, ADD THE MAJORITY TO THE GORE LEDGER, AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE, IT NEVER GOES TO THE SUPREME COURT. SO DO US ALL A FAVOR AND GO AWAY. PIMP YOUR LIES SOMEWHERE ELSE. HERE IS A QUOTE FROM AN ANALYSIS:
If Ralph Nader had not run in 2000, Gore would be President and Bush would be in Texas, not Iraq. Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida would have given Gore a net gain of about 20,000 votes. Gore needed only 600.
NOT TO MENTION OTHER STATES
SO WILY, YOU CAN ARGUE THAT GORE SHOULD HAVE WON HIS HOME STATE, OR THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OVERCOME NADER, BUT IT IS COMPLETELY INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST TO PRETEND THAT IF NADER WAS NOT THERE, THAT GORE STILL WOULD NOT HAVE WON.
2) You resorted once again, in what seems to be a foregone conclusion with your responses, in a personal attack upon a respondent.
PLEASE, I SERIOUSLY DOUBT KEVIN TOOK ANYTHING I SAID HORRIBLY. HE CAME INTO MY THREAD AND MOCKED ME ABOUT SPOILED VOTERS AS IF THEY WERE MILK, SAID PEOPLE WHO CORRECTLY POINT OUT THE PROBLEM OF NADER ARE "WHINING" AND THEN FINISHED IT OFF BY SIMPLY NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. IN RESPONSE THE WORST I SAID WAS CORRECTLY POINTING OUT HIS DISHONESTY.
Your comments towards Kevin are very, very ugly.
NO WILY, THEY WERE NOT AND YOU KNOW THEY WERE NOT. bUT YOU WANT TO COME IN HERE AND CALL HIM BY HIS FIRST NAME AND GET ALL CHUMMY SO YOU CAN TRY AND PAINT ME AS THE BAD GUY AGAIN. BUT AS I HAVE POINTED OUT, YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY LEFT. YOU MERELY SEEK TO MUCK UP THE THREAD. IN FACT I WROTE AN ARTICLE RECENTLY ABOUT YOU, SO WHY DONT YOU TRY RESPONDING TO THAT INSTEAD OF THIS BLATANT BS.
THIS IS BASICALLY ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU WILY. PEOPLE WHO HAVE DROPED OFF THE DEEP END OF REALITY AND LIKE TO SPEND YOUR TIME MEANDERING INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF BEING A ****
JUST LIKE YOU JUST TRIED IN THIS THREAD. YOU ARE PREDICTABLE WILY. IF I WROTE AN ARTICLE ABOUT HOW BLUE THE SKY WAS YOU WOULD REFUTE IT. NOT BECAUSE YOU STAND ON PRINCIPLE, HECK YOU HAVE NO PRINCIPLES; BUT RATHER JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO CAUSE TROUBLE. YOU OFFER NOTHING TO THE DEBATE. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. YOU ARE DEBUNKED AND DISMISSED.
by
Anthony Wade (135 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 440 comments)
on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 8:44:58 PM
That's the only reason why you'd vote for an R or a D. Those knuckle heads aren't going to reform anything. (With the exeption of Ron Paul, of course.) So if you want to endorse our fascist system you know who to vote for, the Demopublicans.
Ah, but the 3rd parties don't stand a chance you say. You're right, but why? Because you don't vote for them! It would be best to vote for the Libertarian Party candidates, but if not just vote for anyone but Rs or Ds.
Personally, though I'm with the LP, I was happy to hear Nader announce. After the shafting he and the Green Party Senatorial candidate Carl Romanelli (http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_09_19.shtml) got from the electoral authorites in '04 here in PA I say go for it. What spunk!
by
Darren Wolfe (3 articles, 77 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 418 comments)
on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 8:55:24 PM
You can create little words all you like but at the end of the day, you are simply wrong. There is a huge difference between Obama and McCain and to pretend otherwise is simply delusional.
for the record, i did more than a few article about Dr. Paul and weas greeted with nothing but derision. We are left with what we are left with.
Be well.
by
Anthony Wade (135 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 440 comments)
on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 9:10:31 PM
A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in. Obama's campaign says that instead he will focus on bringing accountability to these forces while increasing funding for the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency that employs Blackwater and other private security contractors. (Hillary Clinton's staff did not respond to repeated requests for an interview or a statement on this issue.)
Obama's broader Iraq withdrawal plan provides for some US troops to remain in Iraq--how many his advisers won't say. But it's clear that Obama's "follow-on force" will include a robust security force to protect US personnel in Iraq, US trainers (who would also require security) for Iraqi forces and military units to "strike at Al Qaeda"--all very broad swaths of the occupation.
Ya theirs a difference between Mcain and Obama. Mcain probably costs the puppet masters more because of his age and experience. But wait maybe Obama cost more because of his youth and appeal. No wait I've got it, Macain cost more because he has more experience at following orders and covering it up.
by
arlen custer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 193 comments)
on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 8:31:20 AM
you don't get to TELL me who to vote for. and who i vote for is none of your damned business. i plan on voting for Edwards as a write-in. bet that pisses you off as well. my vote IS a protest vote. the democratic party abandoned me as a longtime voter this election cycle. the democratic party has chosen our candidates for us, and i am sorry, but their choices are not my choices. i will vote this year for who i feel will be best for the job ... be it Nader (who makes a whole lot of sense) or John Edwards (who makes sense for ALL americans). the democratic party will not get donations from me, nor will my vote be a given for them. they will have to earn my vote if they want it & they show no inclination to EARN it this election cycle.
by
foolme1s (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 10:08:33 PM
you don't get to TELL me who to vote for. and who i vote for is none of your damned business.
HMM, PRETTY SURE I JUST DID. YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. I CANNOT MAKE YOU VOTE FOR ANYONE YOU DONT WANT TO BUT I SURE AS HELL CAN TELL YOU WHO YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR, AND I JUST DID.
i plan on voting for Edwards as a write-in. bet that pisses you off as well.
THEN YOU SIMPLY DO NOT CARE. YOUR VOTE MEANS NOTHING. YOU HAVE BECOME IRRELVANT. EVEN EDWARDS WOULD TELL YOU NOT TO DO THAT.
my vote IS a protest vote. the democratic party abandoned me as a longtime voter this election cycle. the democratic party has chosen our candidates for us, and i am sorry, but their choices are not my choices.
THAT IS TRUE, BUT BEING PETULANT IS NOT THE ANSWER. YOU ARE NOT A CHILD. YOU CAN STILL REASON AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE BEST THING TO DO IS.
i will vote this year for who i feel will be best for the job ... be it Nader (who makes a whole lot of sense) or John Edwards (who makes sense for ALL americans). the democratic party will not get donations from me,
WELL WE AGREE THERE. I CERTAINLY WOULDNT GIVE EITHER PARTY A DIME.
nor will my vote be a given for them. they will have to earn my vote if they want it & they show no inclination to EARN it this election cycle.
FINE BE PETULANT ALL YOU WANT. HOLD YOUR BREATH, WHATEVER LITTLE PROTEST YOU WANT. PEOPLE COULD END UP DYING FOR YOUR PETULANCE OF COURSE, BUT HEY, ALL THAT MATTERS IS YOU, RIGHT?
by
Anthony Wade (135 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 440 comments)
on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 10:19:21 PM
An article posted by you Anthony titled "Setting the Record Straight on 2000"
You post all the FACTS that prove Nader gave us Bush in 2000.
I will post an article "Setting the Record Straight on 2000" and post all the FACTS that prove Nader did not give us Bush in 2000.
Then we can put them up side by side and have this discussion over what really happened.
After a week or two after this, I'm going to think this discussion will be unnecessary. And every time I read something about Nader costing Gore the election, I will post my article. Every time you read something about Nader not costing Gore the election, you post your article.
by
Kevin Gosztola (172 articles, 89 quicklinks, 62 diaries, 710 comments)
on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 10:56:38 PM
Interesting but not worth the effort. I made a simple point that history has already proven. If you wish to think that Gore would have lost if Nader wasnt in the race then that is your business. It is of course contradicted by logic and history.
Again, i can agree with the argument that Gore should have won, especially since he really did. I can understand the argument that he should have carried his own state and then Florida wouldn't have been in play. But you do not get to rewrite history.
Take care.
by
Anthony Wade (135 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 440 comments)
on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 11:13:38 PM
Nobody knows what Al Gore would have done if elected.There's lots of talk that Gore would have not gone into Iraq or would have captured bin Laden.
We have to remember the things that have been done while one leg of The Corporacracy or the other owned the person who we euphemistically refer to as president of The Former United States of America.
Whatever Truman was thinking, whatever plans Eisenhower may have had, even though Kennedy was OK with putting "advisors" in Vietnam, the person who occupied that position of fantasy during the time when most of the 58,000 American military personnel died was Johnson, that's Johnson-D.
Some believe we didn't have to get involved in WWII and others say that the first group is nuts. I won't get into how I feel about that, but Roosevelt-D was playing the role when Americans died and Japanese Americans were incarcerated.
There are even more people who are convinced we had no reason to lose soldiers in WWI. That's the war that happened during the so called Administration of Woodrow Wilson-D.
If Franklin Roosevelt had anything to do with putting America on the right track for the right reasons after The Depression, I have to admire him for that. I hope he didn't use the death of war to help him.
Herbert Hoover had lots of friends and he did what Republicans seem always to do and that's cronyism America into that very Depression.
A road was built during the Eisenhower years, but he didn't stop people from dying in Korea.
Ford let a criminal go free to save the country from divisiveness which actually might have been good for the country. We may not have fallen asleep to awaken to the fact The United States were finally no longer united.
Carter, well, I'm not sure what Carter did. Some say he caused the energy crisis, some say that bills coming due from Vietnam were doing that. The point is he didn't have the diplomatic skills nor the staff with enough diplomatic skills to free 52 Americans from Iranian captivity. Of course, the presidency is a front for The Corporacracy and the Carter years were slow.
Reagan did very well and I'm sure received good grades from his bosses.
He began escorting American workers to pasture while smiling and being ridiculous enough to be considered America's human sunshine.
His bosses made him and his buddies introduce Iran to El Salvador.
We had our made for TV miniseries war as cameramen and newscasters waited for American soldiers to land on the shores of Grenada. That might be when TV news started to become really silly.
HW screwed Saddam Hussein after years of foreplay. If not for trying to stuff his buddies’ pockets with money in a short period of time, he may have accrued the legacy of being a good president or whatever they call such thespians.
Bill Clinton? Having the stage while the bosses forced the American workers' best friend, NAFTA, on a nation divided by a blow job shouldn’t be something of which to be proud.
Bush may very well be the worst person to ever play president, but it's not because he was behind 9/11. Oh, I'm a supporter of a real investigation into 9/11 and wouldn't be the least bit surprised if The Regime played a small part, had knowledge of 9/11 or did everything from soup to nuts. I don't believe, however, that the guy that some people say is a "terrible president but might be a nice guy to have a beer with” knew 9/11 was going to happen until The Corporacracy was ready to tell him.
Now we're watching more American political theatrics. We actually can now watch the phoniness on TV everyday on C-Span.
The Corporacracy won't own President H. Clinton, President Barrack Obama or President John McCain. No, they won't own them. They already do.
I don't want to be negative, but it is what it is.
It won't change anytime soon, either, because the American people don't realize what it is. Those who care about elections view them as sporting events, sort of November madness, if you will and, truth be told, the people who have the most power to change our so called political system are the very people who benefit from it most. It will be amazing if this nation will ever graduate from The Electoral College and, in light of the fact people say we should fix smaller, more manageable problems first, The Electoral College has a trickle down effect, which is why Americans view so called third parties as they might view a third eye.
Obama, McCain and Clinton all drink from the same trough. They work for the same conglomerate or the same conglomerates. They will send American soldiers where ever The Corporacracy tells them to send American soldiers, they will continue to turn the nation into a two layer class system and maybe half of the American population will continue to argue that things are bad because there's a Democratic president and maybe half of the American people will argue that things are bad because there's a Republican president.
Meanwhile, as was already mentioned in this thread, real Progressives like Nader or The Green Party candidate will never, ever be elected, not because they're third or fourth or fifth party candidates, but because people won't vote for them. And the reason people will never vote for such Progressives? You got it. Because people don't believe that they’ll ever be elected.
Michael Bonanno
by
Michael Bonanno (67 articles, 16 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 115 comments)
on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 4:18:50 AM
Is there a difference, indeed a vast difference, between McCain and Obama? Yes. But as I mentioned in another reply, it's the difference between "empire heavy" and "empire lite."
I cannot be won over with an appeal that says in essence, "Come home to voting for the lesser of two evils." (And as we'll remember, it's not home for me; I wasn't fooled by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, nor even by Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, Gore, or Kerry.) Am I going to be fooled by McCain or Obama? I don't think so.
I think that you're getting lost in the "coulda, shoulda, woulda" thinking about Gore as the SECOND CHOICE of those Nader voters. In a court of law, that entire argument could be tossed as conjecture. The rage at Ralph Nader proves nothing -- it is misplaced. I'm also disappointed in your line, "If you vote for Nader because you feel that there is no difference between Obama/McCain then it is a 'protest' vote, whether you like it or not."
I'm not ready to concede that mine were protest votes. I don't think it's fair for you to call a tune that actually happens within the cranium of other people. It's like Mitt Romney said to John McCain in one of the debates (and I paraphrase): "I'm the one who's got this position. I'm the expert on it, not you." I fully realize that anyone outside of my skull can only guess, second hand, at what transpires inside. When you present 'the thinking of others' with such metaphysical certitude, that should be an intellectual foul.
by
John Kusumi (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 52 comments)
on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 6:29:16 AM
If you honestly think there is no dofference between Obama and McCain and because of that flawed logic you vote for Nader, who you know will not get more then 5% of the vote, you have indeed cast a vote in protest sir. Sorry but that is simply a fact.
by
Anthony Wade (135 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 440 comments)
on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 1:33:39 PM
