Not again. The consumer crusader simply needs to enjoy retirement.
Nader to decide soon on possible presidential run.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said on Monday he will decide soon on whether to make a another bid for the White House in 2008, eight years after playing a key role as a third party presidential candidate.
"I'll decide in about a month," he said in an interview broadcast on CBC Radio's Daybreak show in Montreal.
"What I'm deciding on right now is whether we can get enough volunteers, enough financial resources to overcome the huge ballot access obstacles, which you don't experience here in Canada, but which are the worst in the Western world in the United States," said Nader, who will turn 74 on February 27.
101 Responses to “Nader’s rumbling — please god, no”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Looking forward to two things:
1) the inevitable flame-war resulting from any talk about Ralph Nader; and
2) the young Naderites along with the LaRouchies asking for my signature on Boston Common, and both yelling, “it’s about democracy, dude…dude!” when i don’t want to sign and walk away.
OK, Pam, but what harm is he actually going to cause if he runs? I mean, why the dread? Do you really think he’s in a position to swing the general election? Not this time. I’m proud to have voted for him—and thus against Lieberman—because Dems really did need a wake-up call when they were running a VP like Lieberman. But now, it’s not as if he’s going to convince people that, say, Obama and Romney/McCain are two birds of the same feather.
Then become a Canadian and run for fucking prime minister!I really don’t believe that anyone who would vote for Nader in 2008 would vote for a Democrat were he out of the race. That ship has sailed - it’s just a vague bunch of political dropouts who he’ll get teh approval of.
Run for your lives! Mt. St. Ego is about to blow! Again!
Why can’t he just stick to telling people not to drive Corvairs?
Nader and Bloomberg: For god sake, stay the hell out of the race!!!
As if it wasn’t strange enough…
Meh. Nader’s done more for progressive causes over the decades than anyone in the race for president. He gets a pass from me on the running thing (but not a vote). In fact, the only reason he gets any traction whatsoever is because the Democrats too often demonstrate a lack of spine.
I blame the DLC for this nonsense, not Nader.
(That said, how brain dead would you have to be to vote Nader in this election?)
(That said, how brain dead would you have to be to vote Nader in this election?)
That is so NOT a question to ask when contemplating the American electorate.
Nader and Bloomberg:
UNITY 08!
If the Democratic candidates don’t want Nader to “steal” votes, the reason some of us voted for him in the past has never been a secret. They can change to meet the demand any time they like.
Were 8 years of Bush really a fitting punishment, though?
Nader’s stated goal in running was to open up the field so candidates from beyond the Democratic and Republican parties could be taken seriously. By providing the tipping point that launched our current (and debatably worst ever) president into power, he has effectively shut down any serious consideration of a third party for at least another generation. Forget the whole drama of Florida, and the Bush administration, and all the stuff that every mention of Nader’s name now stirs up - judged by the standards of his stated goal, his 2000 campaign was a failure.
You can blame Nader all you like but you’re still stuck with the on-the-ground fact that Gore won the election (yes, including Florida) and decided it was too much trouble to fight for it.
Where was Gore supposed to take the fight after Bush v. Gore? Congress?
Oh, God/Gaia, YES, PLEASE RUN/ RUN. RALPHIE, RUN!
If the Democratic primaries nominate a corporate Democrat, I vote for someone else. Maybe Nader. Only reason I voted for Gore in 2000 was because he was the only candidate willing to say that humans caused climate change. 8 years later, lots of other candidates talk the talk, but all of them lack the initiative that Gore has.
Lindsay, you raise a point I had not thought of in this. I’m really interested in hearing a good reply to that question. We all know the decision in Bush v. Gore was bullshit, so…in a better world, what would have happened next?
…besides Sandra Day O’Connor changing her mind and voting _for_ democracy, instead of against it?
it’s not as if he’s going to convince people that, say, Obama and Romney/McCain are two birds of the same feather.
Obama’s doing a good enough job of that himself.
Never mind the Republicans who acted in bad faith to illegally strike black voters from the rolls in Florida.
Never mind the Republicans who acted in bad faith to halt the recounts.
Never mind the Republicans who acted in bad faith to astroturf a fake riot and scare election officials into compliance.
Never mind the fact that, despite all the blatantly illegal shenanigans, Gore still won Florida.
No, it’s you goddamn lefties who voted your consciences; you’re responsible for the dissolution of democracy.
It’s likely that I’m going to vote for the Democrat in 2008. I’m leaning, and the odds are better than 50%.
But if I have to endure another year of scattershot blame and shaming, if I have to be the eternal scapegoat for Democrats who prefer to fight their potential allies than their sworn enemies, then I swear to fucking Eris that I will vote for Nader, purely for spite, even if he isn’t running.
Though I am emphatically NOT voting for anyone but a Democrat, I agree with both Richard Goblin and GrammarRWA. If the Democrats somehow manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again, I’m going to blame the DLC, and the Republican thieves. I blame the DLC and their pushing “Electable” Kerry on us for 2004.
Though reading the Salon letters I notice that the whining about the stoopid voters who dare to vote for the candidate they like for possibly, maybe, losing us the election! Blacks and women aren’t “electable” and should just stay the hell out of the race! (Ironic, considering it’s MLK Jr’s day and all.)
if we get another fucking republican in the white house, and its his fucking fault, again, then i am going to shoot him in the ass.
Here we go again…
1) My money is on Nader running. Nader’s fantasy is pressuring the Democratic Party to do the right thing, hence the semi-endorsement of Edwards a few weeks ago. Once Edwards is definitively out of it, Nader will announce he’s running.
2) Nader will have no effect on the outcome of the race. Is anyone here who is seriously considering voting for Nader if he runs also seriously considering voting for the Democratic nominee? Does anyone here even know anybody who would vote for the Democratic nominee if Nader weren’t running, but would vote for Nader if he were? I didn’t think so.
3) A Nader candidacy will have a profoundly negative effect on my party, the Greens. I honestly don’t know whether Nader will try to run as a Green (as he did in 2000) or announce an independent candidacy (as he did in 2004), but my gut tells me that he’s going independent. Nader is deeply suspicious of political parties and wants to be in control of his own destiny. The worst case scenario for the GP is an independent Nader candidacy, which will inevitably include an attempt to get a Green Party endorsement (thus giving us no say in whether or not he runs, but demanding our resources anyway). The party would, once again, be ripped apart by such a turn of events. But even a truly Green Nader run would be a bad thing for the GP. At any rate, though we successfully resisted Nader in 2004, this time I fear that my party will back a Nader run. This would be, in my estimation, a huge mistake. I won’t bore you with the details of why I think this would be the case, but I’m happy to go into more detail if anyone’s interested.
4)The young Naderites along with the LaRouchies asking for my signature on Boston Common, and both yelling, “it’s about democracy, dude…dude!” when i don’t want to sign and walk away.
Well, it is about democracy, MAJeff. Our ballot access laws are completely ridiculous. People should have the ability to vote for any candidate of their choice, not just the two major party candidates. Moreover, if you’ve done any signature gathering, this is the way you get people to sign, which is to say you’re hearing sensible and standard politics not irrational true belief. Now none of this means that one should automatically sign such petitions (just as one shouldn’t necessarily give spare change to homeless people just because one believes that the economic system is inequitable). But it’s silly to complain about appeals to democracy by ballot-access petitioners. They’re both objectively serious and tactically sensible.
…to be continued…
…continuing…
5) If the Democratic candidates don’t want Nader to “steal” votes, the reason some of us voted for him in the past has never been a secret. They can change to meet the demand any time they like.
If the Democrats are serious about not wanting Nader to “steal” votes the answer is adopting Instant Runoff Voting or some other system of Single Transferable Voting. This would eliminate the spoiler problem altogether. Interestingly while IRV is a key plank of the Green Party platform, Nader is against it, largely because he sees his role as putting electoral pressure on the Democrats. IRV would make this strategy impossible. But if 2000 taught us anything, it’s that neither the Democratic Party nor progressive Democratic voters respond positively to such pressure. Whether or not Nader cost Gore the election, Democrats believe that he did. And instead of tacking leftward to recapture Nader voters, the party has turned Ralph Nader into a latter-day Emmanuel Goldstein, and progressive voters have become even more wary of supporting progressive presidential candidates, even within the Democratic Party (e.g. Kucinich in 2004 and this year). The Democratic Party will never change to meet the demand because they have an effective strategy of eliminating the demand without changing.
6) Where was Gore supposed to take the fight after Bush v. Gore? Congress?
Well, yes, actually. Gore (or any other Democratic Senator) could have supported the Congressional Black Caucus’s effort to challenge Florida’s electoral votes. This wouldn’t have changed the outcome, but it would have been an important symbolic measure. Had Gore responded to Bush v. Gore by proclaiming the illegitimacy of the Bush presidency, we’d have been in a better political place, then and now.
But more importantly, Gore and his campaign mishandled the recall fight from the start. They lost the war for public opinion long before Bush v. Gore made it up to the Supremes. Had Gore won the PR campaign, it may or may not have changed the Supreme Court’s attitude. But it would have changed the political effect of the outcome by maximizing the number of people who understood the Bush presidency as a kind of constitutional coup.
Finally, a lot of the Florida battle was essentially lost before the voting: Harris’s purging of voter rolls in the name of felon disfranchisement, the Palm Beach butterfly ballot, and so forth. The GOP did their homework in Florida, the Democrats didn’t. All of these things (and others) made Florida close enough for Bush to steal.
Does anyone here even know anybody who would vote for the Democratic nominee if Nader weren’t running, but would vote for Nader if he were?
Unfortunately, Ben, yes. Yes, I do. And it frustrates the living crap out of me, because they are more concerned with sticking it to the Dems than with, say, pulling this country out of its current nose-dive.
I think voting one’s conscience, unfortunately, in the system we have now, is more than just voting for the candidate you like best. Unfortunately. I really think that 4 more years of someone following in Bush’s footsteps is going to destroy the country, and my conscience tells me that avoiding that is much more important than trying to fight the third party fight in a presidential election.
(When, then, is the time to fight the third party fight? Well, you said yourself we need to change the way ballots work in this country. That happens via Congress, not via doing the same thing in 2008 what didn’t work in 2004 or 2000. Doing the same thing over and over again in the belief that this time it will work is a functional definition of insanity.)
(As is “barring a door with a boiled carrot,” but that’s neither here.)
I suppose that if one truly believes that any of the Dem candidates will follow in Bush’s footsteps as surely as will Romney or Giulani, than one’s concsience is clean in voting for Nader. But me, I think simply pulling out of the nose dive and getting worse slower is infinitely better than what any of the Republican candidates will give us. Because I think they really will destroy the country. I’m that scared.
my, the typos crop up at 1:20 in the morning!
“That’s neither here nor there” was how that second parenthetical was supposed to end.
But that’s neither here nor there either.
Goodnight all.
(When, then, is the time to fight the third party fight? Well, you said yourself we need to change the way ballots work in this country. That happens via Congress, not via doing the same thing in 2008 what didn’t work in 2004 or 2000. Doing the same thing over and over again in the belief that this time it will work is a functional definition of insanity.)
It’s not that simple, though; Greens have a catch-22. There’s no momentum for Instant Runoff Voting unless there are other parties who represent voters’ interests better than the big two. So party-building is always necessary. Parties that don’t put a presidential candidate on the ballot are not considered “real” parties by many people. I’d have to see the numbers again, but I thought I remembered that David Cobb’s safe-states strategy hurt the Greens’ growth efforts in the states where Cobb did not appear on the ballot (perhaps Ben Alpers knows?). If that’s the case, then the Greens need to aim for the presidency.
To those crying about Nader being responsible for Bush?
He isn’t. The laughable American election system is. Electoral colleges? Purging criminals from voting? It’s ridiculous. Even my native Argentina, with all its corruption, has a more transparent system. Oh, and we have more than two parties, did I mention that?
Nader did a lot to open up the field, and he honestly tried to do so, ego or not (and if you tell me any of the other candidates are not up their own behinds, let me laugh at your face). Would you rather he hadn’t tried? Someone has to give it a shot to break the laughable two-party system, which is incredibly anti-democratic.
I certainly know people who want to “stick it to the Democrats” and/or who think that the Democrats are exactly the same as the Republicans. But I’d be very surprised if these people would vote for the Democrats if Nader weren’t on the ballot. Since you apparently know these people, Nicole, could you explain their Democratic vote in the absence of Nader?
As for Grammar RWA’s question about safe-states, David Cobb, and Green Party growth…States and localities, not Congress, determine ballot laws. Better ballot access and Instant Runoff Voting will take place at the state and local level. But as Grammar points out, parties aren’t taken seriously, even at the state and local level, if they don’t run presidential candidates. Like it or not, local and state GP growth is partially dependent on presidential runs.
Moreover, party ballot lines, even in state and local elections, are often determined by securing presidential ballot lines…and getting a certain minimal vote for one’s presidential candidate. There’s no good reason for such restrictive and arcane ballot access laws (other than to provide barriers of entry for all but Democrats and Republicans), but those are the rules that have been written by the two major parties, and minor parties need to play by them.
Grammar RWA has somewhat misunderstood Cobb’s “smart-states strategy” (which is what he called it). It did not mean only going for ballot lines in “safe states.” Cobb tried to get on the ballot in all fifty states and did get on the ballot in many battleground states (indeed his presence on the Ohio ballot allowed him to challenge the results in that state when Kerry and the Democrats refused to do so). But Cobb focused his campaign on non-battleground states and always acknowledged that voters in battleground states might feel compelled to do whatever they could to get rid of Bush. To me this seemed (and seems) like a sensible compromise between the political realities facing the Green Party and the political realities facing progressive voters and the nation as a whole. In 2004, most of my party agreed with me.
Today, I’m pretty sure that I’m in the minority. As Grammar RWA says, the GP did not experience much growth in 2004. There are a lot of reasons for that, not least of which was a constant barrage of lies and innuendos flung at Cobb by Naderites throughout the campaign, claiming that Cobb’s nomination was a result of the GP’s having been undermined by agents of the Democratic Party. The newsletter and website CounterPunch (which has since also gotten into the business of global warming denial) was a particularly dogged source of this crap.
But there’s simply no question that 2000 was better for the party than 2004 (at least in the short run), both because in Nader we had a celebrity candidate, and in Nader’s dogged desire to affect the outcome of the race we (or at least he) garnered a lot of media attention. Nader unquestionably brought a lot of people to the Green Party. But he also refused (and refuses) to work closely with the party itself.
At any rate, 2004 was disappointing, while 2000 was a year of enormous Green growth. In 2004, a substantial minority of Greens–including hardcore Naderites, left sectarians who see the GP and Nader as vehicles for their larger purposes, and folks who first and foremost just want to stick it to the Democrats–wanted to back Nader. Add to the mix the frustrations of 2004 and party rule changes initiated by Peter Camejo’s Naderite “Greens for Democracy and Independence” faction, and I think it’s likely we’ll see Nader backed by the Green Party this year. However, my sense is that the Nader well is now pretty much dry and that those who think that the GP can again experience growth by hitching its wagon to a now widely reviled candidate who fundamentally doesn’t believe in political parties will be sorely disappointed.
Thanks for clearing that up, Ben. I should be more careful with “safe-states”, as I know that was an inaccurate point of attack against Cobb. It was an effective meme: I still remember the attack, whereas the details you reminded me of were fading.
I think it’s likely we’ll see Nader backed by the Green Party this year
Fuck, that’s a disappointing prediction. Aren’t there any possible compromise candidates? Kat Swift? Jared Ball?
The problem is defining what constitutes a “compromise,” Grammar.
Kent Mesplay (whose running again this year) tried to sell himself as the compromise candidate in 2004. He promised to run an all-out campaign (unlike Cobb) while working with, and vigorously promoting, the Green Party (unlike Nader). Nobody went for it. Kent is, as far as I can tell, a nice, smart, and sincere guy. But he lacks Nader’s fame and level of achievement, which is a huge part of what makes Nader so attractive to so many people. And most Cobb supporters actively liked Smart States, to which Mesplay’s candidacy was explicitly in opposition. So while presenting a plausible compromise, Mesplay was ultimately not a very attractive candidate to either side.
This year’s nomination battle seems rather different. Nader’s explanation for not seeking the nomination in 2004 was that the GP had left open the possibility of not nominating a candidate (ironically, Nader ultimately ended up asking us to not nominate a candidate and instead endorse his Independent run). This time, the party has explicitly declared that it will run a candidate (though in ways that leave open the possibility of endorsing an Independent), which takes the red herring of no candidate off the table. And there’s also no candidate promising to run a smart states strategy.
The most likely nominee other than Nader is our other potential celebrity candidate, Cynthia McKinney. As I’ve been out of the country for several months now, I really can’t tell you how her campaign is going or what sort of support she’d be able to maintain if Nader announces he’s in this thing. Unlike Swift and Ball (the latter of whom has, in fact, dropped out of the presidential race to endorse McKinney), McKinney is not a “home grown” Green, having achieved her fame as a Democratic member of Congress. But I’d imagine that McKinney is less hostile to political parties as such than Nader is and would work more closely with the Greens than Nader would if she were to get the nomination.
What about McKinney? I would think she has a lot more name recognition and national political experience than the usual (non-Nader) Green candidate.
Actually, I may vote for Nader. I like the guy - I love his work and what he’s done and I have a lot of respect for him. No one will ever convince me that he shouldn’t have run or whatever else.
And for all those who can’t possibly imagine anyone voting for Nader, I guess everyone who comments here lives in a swing state where your vote matters. How nice for you. In my case, though, this election really doesn’t matter. The Dem will win here - done and done. The upside is that I am free to support third parties, something I always try to do as a matter of principle. The only time I’ve voted for a major party in a presidential election was Kerry in 2004, but that was only ‘cause I hated Bush so much that registering my vote against him was more important that supporting a third party. (Are we blaming Kerry’s loss in 2004 on Nader too these days?)
By the way, it doesn’t matter if the third party candidate doesn’t stand a chance - in some states (not sure which ones, but i remember it from my time in NY) third parties have to register a certain percentage of the vote just to stay on the ballot, so there are other ways those votes help.
Nader’s stated goal in running was to open up the field so candidates from beyond the Democratic and Republican parties could be taken seriously. By providing the tipping point that launched our current (and debatably worst ever) president into power, he has effectively shut down any serious consideration of a third party for at least another generation. Forget the whole drama of Florida, and the Bush administration, and all the stuff that every mention of Nader’s name now stirs up - judged by the standards of his stated goal, his 2000 campaign was a failure.
This is absolutely true, and is something I hadn’t really thought much about before. As if sticking us with WPE wasn’t bad enough . . .
Doesn’t the DLC need a scapegoat as they snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory?
This big money meat grinder of a primary is rendering progressive sentiment into an unappealing pulpy mass.
I fully expect to have three DLC-grade choices, none of which I find appetizing, by the time Maryland’s February 12th primary rolls around.
So forgive me if I spurn the buffet-quality Eurest-style poll-tested Democratic amalgam for a plate of wild greens.
Ailurophile wrote:
Well, as a Republican who voted for George Bush twice — and would do so again if he could run again — I do want to thank y’all for nominating Senator Kerry in 2004!
However, don’t blame the DLC. They are a small group, which advocates certain positions. It was the Democratic primary voters who gave y’all Senator Kerry. If the DLC types made more persuasive arguments than you did to influence the voters, that’s your fault, not the DLC’s.
The problem with Nader isn’t one of votes, it’s one of rhetoric.
I’m an ex-Green, to be honest. Their reoccurring flirtation with this man is why I don’t consider myself part of that party anymore, in fact, it’s why I question their core values. That it’s more posturing than anything else. There’s a couple of reasons for it.
First, it’s the “no difference between the parties” thing. This is complete and total bullshit. It’s an outright lie. And it’s VERY anti-democratic. It’s designed to demoralize the population so they just stay home, so they can say how bad everything is. It only makes the problem worse. And the reason for this is number two..and the biggie..
Nader’s rationale for running in 2000 and 2004 wasn’t to open the door to democracy. It was to increase the power and influence of special interest groups. Yes, they were not corporate groups and generally have mission statements that support the public trust, but it’s all the same. How many times in the last 15 years or so have we seen these groups do inexplicable things just to shore up their own power base? Quite a few. Combine that with a lack of seeing the big picture and seeing politics as a zero sum game….
It’s not the answer.
In this way, Nader is just as much part of the problem along with corporate lobbies, the DLC, the DC press corps and the Republican party.
I still support a lot of the same concepts, universal health care is essential for a society, I like the idea of IRV voting, and I’m probably more to the left of them when it comes to reforming the economy. (To be blunt, I think that capital gains should be taxed punitively) But I don’t see the solutions in top-down views like a new political party. I see it coming from the ground up as new consensus is formed.
Karmakin: First, it’s the “no difference between the parties” thing.
I don’t know anyone who serioiusly claimed this. But it was pretty clear in 2000 that some issues just simply were not up for debate. NAFTA and the WTO for example were two hot issues that were locked out of the disucssion. There also wasn’t going to be a debate about the fed’s treatment of labor and environmental groups as terrorists, or election reform.
I’m in a similar position as anony, or was in 2000, which is why I voted for Nader then. Georgia is a forgone conclusion. It’s voted GOP in every election for thirty years, meaning my measly Dem vote amounts to a lot of nothing. Way to go, electoral College!
And honestly, if I were still going to be in Georgia in November, I’d seriously consider voting for Nader if Hillary wins the nomination. And yes, it’d be a big fat F You to the DLC. It drives me up the everloving wall to listen to that woman talk about change when the only thing she’s changed in the last fifteen years is every single principle she ever had. and for the DLC to reward such nonsense as her triangulation would be appalling.
However. I’ll be living in Oregon in November. Maybe things will change. I could hold my nose and vote for Barrack “I’m just like Reagan, only Black” Obama or Pretty Boy Edwards but would still consider Nader if Hillary were the Nom. I’m too tired of the same old bullshit that the Bush/Clinton Dynasty has handed us.
I don’t know anyone who serioiusly claimed this. But it was pretty clear in 2000 that some issues just simply were not up for debate. NAFTA and the WTO for example were two hot issues that were locked out of the disucssion. There also wasn’t going to be a debate about the fed’s treatment of labor and environmental groups as terrorists, or election reform.
And how’d that work out for you?
“Well, as a Republican who voted for George Bush twice — and would do so again if he could run again…”
Thanks Dana!
If anybody comes to Panadagon and they’ve never seen your lunacy before, that one statement alone (made, mind you in January 2008, after Cheney/Bush have raped this country for the last 7-years, amply earning Bush the title Worst President Ever) would tell them all they need to know about you.
As Bill Engvall would say, “Here’s your sign…”
You mean anyone other than Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, who claimed it over and over again on the campaign trail.
I did vote for Nader in 2000 because I bought the whole “both parties are the same” bullshit, but after 7 years of Bush/Cheney, I kick myself every day for that vote. And it was in California, which is about as Democratic a state as you can get.
KeithM: And how’d that work out for you?
Let me tell you about where I live. The electoral college votes are given to the Republicans before the end of the primaries. Draconian ballot access laws are enforced only for parties not in the big three. The Democrats and Republicans in 2000 both broke the law and were given a free pass. Write-in votes are not even counted. So it is not as if my vote mattered.
mnemosyne: I did vote for Nader in 2000 because I bought the whole “both parties are the same” bullshit, but after 7 years of Bush/Cheney, I kick myself every day for that vote. And it was in California, which is about as Democratic a state as you can get.
Well, look, there are two sides here. The Democratic party didn’t want me, my politics, or my participation. And yet, it felt entitled to my vote. At some point, Democratic partisans need to start looking at why they chose to fight their own left in 1999-2000 rather than the right.
Nader used to be a progressive hero. Now he’s seems determined to end his life as a third rate Harold Stassen. Sad, really.
BTW, where has Ralph been for the past seven years of hell? There are lots of ways he could have used his celebrity to protest the Shrub junta. But the only time we hear from him is when he wants to run for President for the umpteenth time.
Karmakin,
Sounds like you and I have some of the same concerns about the Greens as I do. For whatever reason, I’m still in the party. I suppose I do think that political parties are important, that we need more (not fewer) of them, and that the Green Party’s Ten Key Values correspond very nicely with my core political beliefs.
The GP has wasted an awful lot of its energy on internal bickering. And we’ve made a number of unfortunate decisions in establishing our political brand. But since I neither see any sign of the Democratic Party reforming itself in the near future (and thus see no reason to become a Democrat to take part in a nonexistent reform movement), nor another third party that is closer to my values or more politically effective, I remain a Green out of principle, even if my practical hopes for the party are not what they once were.
as a Republican who voted for George Bush twice — and would do so again if he could run again —
All we need to know about Dana.
And for that matter, it’s something that baffles me about Pandagon, Bilerco, and Pam’s House Blend. Why the fuck are we spending so much time and energy on candidates who are indifferent or hostile to our politics? So much angst about Clinton’s conservativism vs. Obama’s pandering, and Edwards’s waffling. Let’s be blunt here. Any Democrat elected to office is going to be a roadblock to economic justice, reproductive rights, and marriage equality. Partisanship just doesn’t make sense to progressives now that the Dem’s occupy the same political space as Nixon.
One thing I don’t like about the 3rd party discussions is that Republicans (and some anti-Clinton Democrats) somehow equate Perot’s influence on the ‘92 and even ‘96 elections with Nader’s in ‘00, and that Clinton’s wins were somehow “tainted” because he couldn’t get 50%, even though he beat Bush41 and Dole by 6% and 9% and got 370 and 379 electoral votes on each try.
Perot, as a pro-choicer and anti-free-tradist, was hardly a pure conservative draw the way Nader was a mostly pure left draw.
Moreover, if Perot drew 19% in a 3-way race with Reagan and Mondale, then “St. Ronnie” wouldn’t have been able to get 50%.
In a straight 2-way race against Bush41 and Dole, every serious analysis has shown that while there’s no way Clinton would’ve won states like Georgia and Montana, he wouldn’t have bled that entire 6% gap or especially that entire 9% gap.
Any Democrat elected to office is going to be a roadblock to economic justice, reproductive rights, and marriage equality. Partisanship just doesn’t make sense to progressives now that the Dem’s occupy the same political space as Nixon.
And Republicans will be?
Let’s be quite frank: that’s your choice. Now, as I am Canadian (and we currently have 5 parties in Parliament, and I think one or two independents) so you can take what I say in whatever manner you want, but the first step in getting what you want is changing the government from someone actively hostile to your goals to one that is indifferent. That is a step up.
Pretending otherwise may make you feel morally superior but you better be satisfied with being morally superior because that’s all you’ll ever have.
Well, no, however imperfect a Democrat may be according to progressive purity tests, he or she would still be better than a Republican. Realpolitik rears its head.
However, I believe there’s a middle ground between “A Democrat really wouldn’t be much better” and “The slightest misstep, and it’s four more years of Rethugs again.” The Salon letters are a great example of the latter. One “Tangerine” wants us to vote for John Edwards - NOT because she believes in anything Edwards stands for, but because he’s a white male and ZOMG people hate Hillary and Obama SOOOO MUCH that it will hand the country over to the Rethugs despite their feeble showing in the primaries. This is ridiculous. I would argue that Democratic chickenshittery is what gave us four more years of Bush in 2004. Kerry was “safe.” Well, not enough people voted for Mr. Safe and Electable to prevent Bush from stealing the election.
For the record, I am voting for John Edwards. Not because he’s white and male, but because I believe he’s the candidate who stands for economic justice. I’m not voting for Nader. I never voted for Nader, and I really don’t think anyone is going to be voting for him this time around. But I’m so sick of hearing Democrats bleating like frightened little lambs; I really believe this is what is wrong with the Democrats and why they cannot win elections.
KeithM: Let’s be quite frank: that’s your choice. Now, as I am Canadian (and we currently have 5 parties in Parliament, and I think one or two independents) so you can take what I say in whatever manner you want, but the first step in getting what you want is changing the government from someone actively hostile to your goals to one that is indifferent. That is a step up.
“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”
That I think is the first step. I think that mnemosynie’s post shows quite well that this issue for many is less aboout enabling change, and more about having a loyalty test, a shibboleth around which people can play gotcha politics.
Indiana is one of the many states that is “fixed” in regards to the Electoral College. As far as I can tell, where the presidential race is concerned, I’m disenfranchised six ways come tuesday. I’m not serene about it but I’m smart enough to know that’s something I can’t change.
Well, what can I change? I can cange the majority party in the HoR where the local district race comes down to a few thousand votes. I hope I can change the govenor’s office this fall. But the Senate race in 06 was fixed, forcing me to vote for a Libertarian or a Republican.
What else can I change? Well, the radio station I volunteer for has added two new repeaters allowing us to broadcast news programs about local queer, latino and african american issues into more communities (along with Democracy Now!.) That is a positive change. The co-op I’m a member of has a new grocery on the bus line in an underserved neighborhood. The GLBT speaker’s bureau does dozens of programs reaching over a thousand university and high-school students every year. Each one of these has more real impact than what I expect from whoever is elected president.
For the one million four hundred seventy six thousand nine hundred sixty second time:
Ralph.
Nader.
Is.
A.
Halliburton.
Stockholder.
For the one million four hundred seventy six thousand nine hundred sixty second time:
- The Iraq War has been a major boon for Halliburton.
- Dick Cheney = Halliburton.
- Many on the Bush team desired war with Iraq looooong before 2002, looooong before 9/11, loooooong before Election 2000.
- Ralph Nader said, when the chips were down, he’d vote for Bush over Gore in ‘00.
- Ralph Nader, among other things, helped Bush snare that election.
- The Iraq War has been a major boon for Halliburton.
For the one million four hundred seventy six thousand nine hundred sixty second time:
OPEN.
YOUR.
EYES.
PROGRESSIVES.
He played you for fools. He’d do it again in a Halliburton-sized heartbeat. Stop being suckers.
I think that mnemosynie’s post shows quite well that this issue for many is less aboout enabling change, and more about having a loyalty test, a shibboleth around which people can play gotcha politics.
Not really. Just pointing out that many of us were suckered by Nader’s rhetoric in 2000 and that the past seven years have shown that, no, Gore would not have been just as bad a president as Bush.
Indiana is one of the many states that is “fixed” in regards to the Electoral College. As far as I can tell, where the presidential race is concerned, I’m disenfranchised six ways come tuesday. I’m not serene about it but I’m smart enough to know that’s something I can’t change.
No? The Supreme Court is deciding right now whether or not Indiana voters are going to be required to show photo ID at the polls from now on, which will literally disenfranchise elderly, poor, and disabled voters.
You can complain about how you’re “effectively” disenfranchised, but what have you done about the voters in your own state who are about to be literally disenfranchised?
D.N. Nation: Of course, some of us were not that fond of Nader in 2000 either. But fuck, how much shit needs to be dumped on you by a sitting Democratic president before you suckers quit bending over backwards to kiss their ass? How many protesters locked up for possession of puppets? How much COUNTERINTELPRO do you want? How many secret “free trade” meetings to trump environmental laws? How many environmental accords submarined through bad-faith negotiation? How much backstabbing on gay rights?
If you don’t address the very real grievances that sundered the coalition in 2000, we’re going to face it again in 2012 or 2016. No amount of bellyaching about Nader the person is going heal the very real conflicts that made his 2000 campaign more significant than his 1996 campaign.
“however imperfect a Democrat may be according to progressive purity tests, he or she would still be better than a Republican.”
I would disagree on maybe 5% of exceptions. Zell Miller is worse than a LOT of Republicans, and someone like Ben Nelson or, if we still consider him a Democrat, Joe Lieberman, is worse than at least a few Republicans (Justices Souter and Stevens are nominally Republican but are great judges; Lincoln Chafee and arguably Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are better than the Democrats mentioned in terms of many comparisons of voting records, etc.)
However, on the Presidential level where the nominees are selected so as to be far more representative of their party platforms than the people in either party just mentioned, the original quote is essentially always correct.
The American voting system is utterly defective as it stands right now. The only real rational (in a game-theory sense) choice for progressives is
a) live in a swing-state, and
b) vote democratic party.
If you don’t live in a swing state, don’t show up. If you vote for a 3rd party, you may as well have stayed home.
And that sucks. The problem is that the real solution - better voting methods (IRV, approval voting, proportional representation, whatever - ANYTHING) are not in the slightest interest of the major parties.
Mnemosyne: Not really. Just pointing out that many of us were suckered by Nader’s rhetoric in 2000 and that the past seven years have shown that, no, Gore would not have been just as bad a president as Bush.
You can complain about how you’re “effectively” disenfranchised, but what have you done about the voters in your own state who are about to be literally disenfranchised?
Ahh, you deny that it’s not a shibboleth and then use it as such to infer that I don’t care about such and such unrelated issue.
The answer is, quite a bit more than you by voting for the legislators who oppsed the bill, voting against the govenor who signed the bill, and campaigning for it’s eventual repeal.
And if necessary, I’m going to be volunteering to get people the ID and certification they need to vote, and get them to early paper ballot voting becauuse the Hill v. Sodrel race is likely to have an impact on national politics.
But golly gawsh gee, obviously because the litmus paper of my presidential politics tends towards pink rather than blue my participation in other politics doesn’t matter.
And in what way is playing “gotcha” over voting history advancing progressive politics?
That era of history is over. 9/11, the Bush Administration (supported in wholesale by Nader himself) and the Iraq War (ditto) saw to that.
But saaaay it isn’t. I’d rather a donkey be in the White House first, thanks. Then we can address those very real grievances. If we are to believe the dog-and-pony-show that Nader wasn’t anything more than a GOP operative in the first place, his tune that the grievances would be addressed through the forged unity of anti-Bush-White-House resistance has proven, as you’ve even admitted, to be a crock of bull.
So. Nader was either around 107% wrong about everything, or he was a liar the entire time. I’m not sure which one’s worse; having not ever been as incorrect about everything or as fraudulent as Nader, I’ve never had to make this choice.
Yep. And I still hear Democrats blaming me for Gore “losing” Florida. Even though Gore won Florida.
Democrats’ relationship with Republicans and Greens is much like the frustrated worker who’s abused by his boss, and then comes home and kicks his dog. Don’t be surprised when that dog shits all over the bedspread.
I have no end of respect for the few exceptions, who don’t whine and flail at a scapegoat, but instead stand up and fight the damn enemy. If the Democratic party is ever fixed, it will be by people like Ailurophile.
Again, for the record, Gore won in 2000. The election was stolen. Blaming Nader for that isn’t going to change the fact those who voted for Gore accepted the fraudulent result just as did those who voted for Bush and Nader. I understand that it is easier to scapegoat Nader than it is to accept that you don’t have the spine to stand up and fight for democracy, but there it is.
Some want to argue about how much better things might have been had Gore taken the oath of office, but we can’t, because he didn’t. And he didn’t because we all laid down and watched our nation turn into a banana republic. It isn’t out of the realm of possibility that the Bushies figured– after stealing the highest office in The World’s Greatest Democracy™– that they could likely get away with just about any damned thing. And they have, while a prostrate Congress (Dems and all) has either stood and watched or helped them along.
So let go of the Nader-bashing, because the last seven years ain’t his fault. It’s Yours, Mine, and Ours. I don’t know if growing up enough to accept that will do us any good, judging by the corporate-approved Dem ‘frontrunners’ on the ballot today, but it might be a helpful start.
That one would feel that this should even be said is evidence that The Nader Who Was Merely Wrong About Things And Not Actually A Cheney Operative was, well, wrong about things. The forged unity stuff? Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Go back and re-read some of those Nader quotes. It’s OK, Bush over Gore isn’t so bad! It’s just a matter of a few Justices, that’s all! It’ll only be four years! Perhaps we did watch our nation turn into a banana republic, but you know who was the devil on our shoulder the entire time?
I’ll say it again: Nader was either a moron, or a sinister pawn. Which is it? I’ll smile at whatever the answer is, knowing of my rightness 7+ years ago.
Ahh, you deny that it’s not a shibboleth and then use it as such to infer that I don’t care about such and such unrelated issue.
Voting rights are unrelated to elections and who runs in them? Really?
Alls I can say is, I’ll gladly take a Nader flamewar over a Paul flamewar any day of the week.
Oh, GrammarRWA, naaah, all I really do is vote, write letters, and rant a bit.
It’s the bloggers, people like our hostesses Pam and Amanda, and (yes, yes, hold the flames kthx)Markos Zuniga, who host progressive blogs, they are making a huge difference. People like John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, who may not be “electable” but who run for office and make their voices heard. THOSE people are gonna save the Dems if they can be saved.
I have to wonder, at times like these, what more I can do and what it is. Because the enormity of the task is daunting. I believe that our voting process needs to be fundamentally changed and the Electoral College scrapped, and the mainstream media defanged or at least decorporatized before we can see someone like Kucinich, or Edwards for that matter, in office and a Democratic Congress that doesn’t cower before the Rethugs. The $64K Question is what do we do about it and how do we go about it?
Except, even if your dichotomy were not a false one, it wouldn’t fucking matter because Gore won Florida. You keep beating your dead horse because you aren’t even interested in working on future solutions. You just want to yell at Greens for being different than you.
“Devil on our shoulder”? Is that quantifiable? Where is it on the relevance scale? I’m guessing it’s somewhere close to “meaningless, but then so is this whole grudge-against-Nader thing.”
Once again, this ain’t about Nader; I could give two shits about the guy. Democratic partisans need to let go of the scapegoating and start asking themselves why their presidential candidates lose even when they win.
Once again, this ain’t about Nader; I could give two shits about the guy. Democratic partisans need to let go of the scapegoating and start asking themselves why their presidential candidates lose even when they win.
You mean other than right-wing thuggery like the “riot” in Florida, intimidation of public officials, corrupt public officials, and just enough conservatives on the Supreme Court to get “Bush v. Gore” decided in Bush’s favor?
Nope, I can’t think of any outside reasons why Bush ended up in office. It must have been solely because the Democrats suck.
Oh, and I should be clear about one thing: I think one of the big reasons that a lot of people didn’t protest the 2000 election was that they had bought into the “both parties are the same” bullshit and thought that having Bush as president wouldn’t be much different than having Gore. If Bush and Gore are essentially the same, why protest? Of course, now we know why, but by 2004 it was too late.
So that’s what I blame Nader for.
Democratic partisans need to let go of the scapegoating and start asking themselves why their presidential candidates lose even when they win.
IAWTC x 100. The Dems will never get anywhere if all they do is whine about how ill-done-by they are, how stoopid the voters are, and how Nader or other Scapegoats Du Jour were entirely responsible for their loss.
Because it’s NOT HELPING. Yes, of course, the Rethugs and their crooked tactics and stranglehold on the MSM are blame-worthy in many ways. But the Dems really have to face the music now. We can’t blame Nader for 2004, and if worst comes to worst, we won’t be able to blame Nader for 2008 either.
Really? I mean, really?
51 million people voted for Gore, and every one of them was swindled into thinking there’s no difference between the parties?
That sure would have been a hell of a protest. But I guess they all stayed home and smoked pot.
Ben couldn’t have been more right with the Emmanuel Goldstein comparison.
Well, yes, actually. Gore (or any other Democratic Senator) could have supported the Congressional Black Caucus’s effort to challenge Florida’s electoral votes. This wouldn’t have changed the outcome, but it would have been an important symbolic measure. Had Gore responded to Bush v. Gore by proclaiming the illegitimacy of the Bush presidency, we’d have been in a better political place, then and now.
At the time, galling as it may have been, it made a certain level of sense to let it go and allow the country to be governed. Deliberately sabotaging the Bush Administration as illegitimate (even if it was) could easily be seen as not being good for the country.
I mean, at the time, how bad could the Republicans be seen to be likely to stuff it up…?
51 million people voted for Gore, and every one of them was swindled into thinking there’s no difference between the parties?
Were you in the country while the election was being contested? Do you remember the constant drumbeat from CNN, MSNBC, and every pundit about how Gore should give up, it’s bad for the country to contest it, we’ll be ripped apart if this goes on much longer, oh Supreme Court save us from having to follow the procedure laid out in the Constitution! Etc etc ad nauseum.
And, yes, I do think that Gore voters were beaten down by that refrain on the right as well as the refrain from the left that both Gore and Bush were corporate candidates, so one was just as good as the other and it didn’t really matter which one became President. Not to mention the WATB actions of the Republicans, who were threatening to bring the entire government grinding to a halt if Gore won.
Is it the sole blame of Greens and other Nader voters? Of course not. There were many, many factors that contributed to the botching of the election. But your hands ain’t as lily-white as you seem to think.
D. N. Nation: That era of history is over. 9/11, the Bush Administration (supported in wholesale by Nader himself) and the Iraq War (ditto) saw to that.
No it’s not. Take a look at what happened to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I got five dollars right now down on the prediction that when push comes to shove, “lesser of evils” is going to be used to shout down advocacy an inclusive ENDA.
It happened in 2006 when gay rights activists were 1) blamed for the timing of the NJ supreme court decision and 2) told not to criticize Ford’s gaybaiting on the eve of the election.
It’s happening right now with Obama saying one thing to LGBT activists and another to anti-gay churches.
D.N. Nation: Then we can address those very real grievances.
What happened when we tried to address those grievances in Seattle, Philadelphia, and LA during the 99-00 campaign season?
Mnemosyne: Voting rights are unrelated to elections and who runs in them? Really?
But that’s not the point of your argument is it? The point of your argument is some sort of personal gotcha that because the Republicans won Indiana electoral votes by 343,856 rather than 343,855 in 2000, I’m personally responsible for a Supreme Court decision regarding a law in my state. (The margin in 2004 was even worse.)
It’s a shibboleth. Because this discussion is not about what I”ve personally done to aid or block this law. It’s about my refusal to express the proper amount of self-hatred and regret for choosing to cast an uncounted vote for a gay-positive and pacifist platform.
Mnemonsyne: Is it the sole blame of Greens and other Nader voters? Of course not. There were many, many factors that contributed to the botching of the election. But your hands ain’t as lily-white as you seem to think.
If we had a consensus system of election, this would be true. In a consensus system, the Democrats would have give more than lip service to the idea of a coalition.
But we don’t. What we have is an n-way horesrace. And a person is only obligated by their own consience.
But that’s not the point of your argument is it?
Your argument is that your one vote wouldn’t make a difference. Add up enough people who are convinced that their “one vote” will make no difference and you get, well, only half of registered voters bothering to vote. Because, after all, they only have one vote, and what difference is it going to make?
Obviously, you can do whatever you want, and you’re completely convinced that nothing you do will make a difference. Be my guest and vote for Nader, but you then pretty much give up your right to complain about President Huckabee because, after all, your one vote wouldn’t have made a difference, right?
Bingo. And Nader, he of Not The Nader Who Was Actually A Bush Agent All Along, but merely The Nader Who Has Bill Kristol’s Talent For Predicting Politics, was the pied piper of the Who cares? Just sit it out, folks! rot the whole way through.
No, I want to yell at Greens for effectively terminating any chances for a third-party liberal movement for the next, oh, forever years due to their slobber all over a Quixotic stooge.
Oh, and labeling me as apathetic toward what happened in Florida is bo-ho-ho-hogus. A rather clever plan from the Nader revisionists, though…Who killed the Democrats? ALL of us! Look over there!
As a former Nader fan (I would have voted for him in 2000, in California, had I been old enough to vote at the time), I’m shocked by the level of support he still receives. For all that Nader claims to be a progressive, the organizations that he founded or directly influenced (especially the PIRGs) are run according to business practices deeply antithetical to progressivism. They lack transparency, bust unions, lack good living wages, and so on. Combined with his Haliburton stock holdings and willingness to accept money from Republicans hoping that he will spoil elections, I really don’t get why people still support.
Even though he did not actually spoil the 2000 election, he was happy to attempt it and his actions since then have made the claim at the time that he was trying to build up Green Party viability nationally seem patently false. I still support the idea of reforming ballot access/voting mechanisms, and I’d be happy to vote or even volunteer for Greens at the local level, but defending Nader at this point requires an almost willful level of ignorance.
He’s been counting the money from Bush ‘00.
He used to stand for something that I could believe in, now I don’t know what he stands for and don’t care. STAY THE HELL OUT RALPH!!! It won’t be on the side that I will be fighting for…
That’s a great way of putting it. Greens and other third-party members who think that Nader did anything other than feed his own ego in both 2000 and 2004 are living in a dream world. And I agree with D.N. that Nader damaged the Green Party in a major way that I don’t think a lot of Greens have faced yet. At least they were smart enough to reject him when he came calling again in 2004.
Hmm. Funny how Nader came in and destroyed the national image of the Green Party the same way that Pat Buchanan came in and destroyed the Reform Party. You’d almost think there was a party out there that doesn’t want third parties to gain any foothold.
Mnemosyne: Your argument is that your one vote wouldn’t make a difference.
Well yes, my argument is one vote in that particular race wasn’t going to make a difference. And furthermore, from everything I’ve seen on how national campaigns are run here, the National Democratic Party agrees that Democratic votes are expendible. There is no fucking race here. Few whistle-stops, no handshaking.
What will convince me to support the Democratic candidate for president? Show me that the 50 state initiative was not a fluke of 2006. Show me a good ground fight for the entire slate of candidates because we need the house, the statehouse, both senate seats and the goveneor’s mansion. Convince me that I’m not going to be thrown under the bus at the first opportunity.
Obviously, you can do whatever you want, and you’re completely convinced that nothing you do will make a difference.
And obviously you can’t read, because I’ve listed more than a dozen ways in which I feel that I do make a difference. But the point of a shibboleth is that those things don’t matter, not a House majority, not statehouse reps who block anti-gay amendments, not grass-roots activism. It all comes down to a single vote in a single race. And that’s what really pisses me off. How much energy is on this game of gotcha that could be spent promoting the grass roots groups that actually make a fucking difference in your community.
And I don’t have a single vote, I have about two dozen, every two years, almost all of which go to democratic candidates. But of course, those don’t matter.
Mnemosyne: Be my guest and vote for Nader, but you then pretty much give up your right to complain about President Huckabee because, after all, your one vote wouldn’t have made a difference, right?
No, basic civics 101 here. The right to speech doesn’t depend on how you voted. You can complain about candidates you voted for or against. I can complain about the Govenor of California who I can’t vote for. I can complain about Tila Tequila’s popularity contest. I can certainly complain about Nader, because I wasn’t fond of him as a Green candidate in 2000, and he wasn’t one in 2004. I can complain about Obama, Clinton or Edwards, one of whom will likely get my vote in May, or perhaps not because I might just focus on my other two-dozen votes in the primary. I can complain about the snow on the ground, and the food at McDonalds, and cable television.
Casting one vote out of two-dozen is only one form of activism, and the efficacy of our voting system hinges on the principle that can be as private and as public as you want it. Making some rights contingent on other rights is called corruption. And that’s a bad thing.
Look, I know Americans aren’t used to multiple parties, but let me put it very simply:
The only people responsible for electing Republicans are the people who vote for a Republican. And yes, that includes all those people who say that they’ll vote for McCain before they vote for another Clinton.
People who vote for third parties who better reflect their beliefs are doing what we always say they should do: put policy first.
Nader did not spoil the 2000 election. Gore won the popular vote and you all know the story there. He did not spoil the 2004 election. Should he run, he will not spoil the 2008 election either. Stop using him as a scapegoat.
If you’re looking for people to blame other than GOP voters, consider the apathetic 40% who couldn’t be bothered to come out and vote. The ones who didn’t care. They deserve some ire. The people who voted for the candidate they thought best do not deserve your spite.
Again, if your one vote doesn’t matter, why should the Democrats spend any time trying to convince you? You’ve made up your mind that a national initiative that started in 2005 is a failure because you haven’t seen your local party step up, so therefore it’s all on the national Democrats to win your love back.
Is your one vote the only thing that matters? Of course not. But as I keep trying to tell you, the attitude that “one vote doesn’t matter” is not limited to you. How does insisting your one vote doesn’t matter help with turnout in your local districts? After all, if your one vote doesn’t matter, how are you going to convince anyone else that their “one vote” does matter?
And you know something, I felt about Nader in 2000 about the same way that many people feel about Obama/Clinton/Edwards now. I had no love for him in 2000, but I strongly felt that the second half of the Clinton administration was a disaster for left-wing politics, and the Gore presidency would have rooted American politics in a very bad place. I kept waiting for some glimmer of hope in the Gore campaign that the left was not the enemy, and it never appeared.
Mnemosyne: Again, if your one vote doesn’t matter, why should the Democrats spend any time trying to convince you? You’ve made up your mind that a national initiative that started in 2005 is a failure because you haven’t seen your local party step up, so therefore it’s all on the national Democrats to win your love back.
I think I’m being quite fair here in that I’ve said I’m willing to change my mind. I’m willing to cast my vote for a democratic presidential candidate regardless of the raw numbers if I see some things happen. And I don’t think that those things are impossible or even difficult. Why should I vote in a race that doesn’t expend a minimum of effort to court my vote?
Mnemosyne: Is your one vote the only thing that matters? Of course not. But as I keep trying to tell you, the attitude that “one vote doesn’t matter” is not limited to you. How does insisting your one vote doesn’t matter help with turnout in your local districts? After all, if your one vote doesn’t matter, how are you going to convince anyone else that their “one vote” does matter?
The “doesn’t matter” phrase is your words, not mine, I think. What I said was that my votes in 2000 and 2004 wouldn’t have changed the Electoral College results. They had a slim chance of changing ballot access laws here, which I think is a big deal. Which, you would understand if you actually gave a flying fuck about voter rights here beyond just using them as a rhetorical sledge.
And of the two dozen other votes I have every other year, most of those votes matter quite a bit. State and local governments have a huge impact on people’s lives. And may I remind you, that my district helped create the narrow house majority of 2006.
But you know, this is all gotcha. And I’m willing to bet that I do more to get people to the polls. All you are doing is making noise in fixating on a litmus test of political tribalism. Go play gotcha with someone else.
Anyway, Nader is too old to be president. Chuck Norris told me so.
But you know, this is all gotcha. And I’m willing to bet that I do more to get people to the polls. All you are doing is making noise in fixating on a litmus test of political tribalism. Go play gotcha with someone else.
You keep taking the bait. But, hey, if you want to play purer-than-thou games with national elections, be my guest. This year, it does matter if you vote for Kang or Kodos, and you should stop pretending that it doesn’t.
I also agree with Mnemosyne, that just as much blame (if not more!) should be laid at the door of those who voted Republican - or, worse, who did not vote at all. Frankly, it’s the latter who I really dislike and don’t have any respect for. I bet elections would look far different if everyone would COULD vote, DID.
Something that does sometimes worry me: IF the worst comes to pass, and the Dems somehow manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and screw things up so that we have yet another Rethug in the White House - in the orgy of blaming and fingerpointing and gotcha-ing that is sure to ensue, will there be a huge backlash against women and/or African-Americans from the Dems? Because at this point it’s almost a sure thing that Sen. Clinton or Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Well, if the worst-case scenario happens and Clinton or Obama goes down in flames - I can see the bleating lambs of the Dem party baa-ing that a black man (or woman) should never EVER have been allowed to run because it made us lose and will you please go to the back of the bus and STAY there, and it’s all the fault of women/African-Americans/whoever for voting for this person in the first place!
Alas, the Dems seem to be better at yapping and finger-pointing than self-examination and figuring out why they seem to be so good at losing.
Deanna, that’s the funny thing about we Yanks: once we get a hold of a scapegoat, it’s really hard for us to let go.
Mnemosyne, your arguments read like really great excuses for not turning in one’s homework. The fact remains: millions of Gore supporters saw the theft and chose to do nothing. Getting pissed doesn’t count, and trying to blame Nader doesn’t wash. My point isn’t that Nader or his supporters were saints or that Nader was the best candidate at the time. My point is that Nader didn’t lose the election for Gore, plain and simple. The last seven years are the fault of all those who supported Bush and all the rest of us who chose to accept the fraudulent result.
Or to be blunt. Since 1990 I have consistently voted for candidates that I feel, knowing the politics on the ground in my home, best advance the politics that I favor. I refuse to apologize, or engage in the ritualistic self flagilation with wet noodles that evidently is expected of tribal membership.
If you want to fixate on this vote, or that vote, (oh noes, he voted Libertarian against unopposed Republicans!) that’s your problem.
You keep taking the bait. But, hey, if you want to play purer-than-thou games with national elections, be my guest. This year, it does matter if you vote for Kang or Kodos, and you should stop pretending that it doesn’t.
Project much? I mean, seriously, you come in on a high horse, “oh, pity me, I’m the self-hating Nader voter, watch me abuse myself for your benefit!” Then it’s a long series of cliches and ignorant homilies except for the whole thing with the Voter ID law, which is bordeline offensive because you don’t really care about disenfranchised voters in my state, do you? It’s just rhetorical ammo.
If you have a problem with my voting history, or my lack of apology for making what I felt was the best decision given history and local context, it’s your problem, and your loss if you use it as a litmus test.
Ailurophile: You know who was blamed over on Kos for Ford’s defeat?
Gay rights activists in NJ. I kid you not.
My point isn’t that Nader or his supporters were saints or that Nader was the best candidate at the time. My point is that Nader didn’t lose the election for Gore, plain and simple.
I never said that Nader by himself lost the election. Are you trying to claim that Nader had no effect on the election?
All I’ve been arguing is that Nader deserves a share of the blame — not the whole blame but, as I said, a share of the blame. But no one wants to admit for even a minute that Saint Ralph let them down.
And, as I said before, it’s awfully suspicious that two viable third parties (the Reform Party and the Green Party) were both taken down by outside “celebrity” candidates, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, who split the parties and caused deep divisions within them.
But, yes, let’s keep arguing back and forth that Nader was completely blameless in 2000, if it makes you feel better.
I mean, seriously, you come in on a high horse, “oh, pity me, I’m the self-hating Nader voter, watch me abuse myself for your benefit!” Then it’s a long series of cliches and ignorant homilies except for the whole thing with the Voter ID law, which is bordeline offensive because you don’t really care about disenfranchised voters in my state, do you? It’s just rhetorical ammo.
Sorry, which one of us is making the purer-than-thou argument? Hint: it’s not me. I made a choice in 2000 that I now regret. But I guess that if I don’t stick by my original decision no matter what, even if I think in retrospect that it was the wrong decision, that’s proof that I’m a Bad Liberal.
And, yes, I do care about the disenfranchised voters in Indiana. That’s why I wrote to the Supreme Court as they make their decision. They probably won’t listen to me since I’m from California but, unfortunately, there’s not a whole lot else I can do, being in California. Shall I quit my job, pick up, move to Indiana, and do volunteer work while living out of my car before you accept that I care about things that happen in other states?
Ohh, by the technicolor yawn of Bacchus this is one of the things that I really hate about left-wing politics. When conservatives loose it seems that they demonize liberals. When leftists win, it seems that they demonize each other.
Sorry, which one of us is making the purer-than-thou argument? Hint: it’s not me. I made a choice in 2000 that I now regret. But I guess that if I don’t stick by my original decision no matter what, even if I think in retrospect that it was the wrong decision, that’s proof that I’m a Bad Liberal.
Huh? After saying that I vote Democratic with a majority of the two-dozen votes I get every other year, fully intend to participate in Democratic party primaries this year, and will consider voting for a Democratic presidential candidate this year, I’m purer than thou? Huh?
I’m calling you out not because you changed your mind, but because you are trying to hold this as an ideological litmus test. You feel it was a mistake, I don’t. Get over it already. I won’t hold it against you if you don’t hold it against me.
And, yes, I do care about the disenfranchised voters in Indiana. That’s why I wrote to the Supreme Court as they make their decision. They probably won’t listen to me since I’m from California but, unfortunately, there’s not a whole lot else I can do, being in California.
How nice, a token political gesture. You want a cookie? A certificate available for framing?
Shall I quit my job, pick up, move to Indiana, and do volunteer work while living out of my car before you accept that I care about things that happen in other states?
Actually, that would be a start. Perhaps you can live here for six months, get registered to vote, work for media that distributes information for this issue (let me introduce you to our news director), vote for candidates fighting to repeal this turd of a law, help out with voter registration and ID requirements, and then you can attempt to point your finger and go “shame shame.”
As it is, you are a day late and a dollar short.
Why do liberals demonize each other? I believe it’s our greatest failing. When we lose we yap, whine, and point fingers, rather than saying “what went wrong and what can we do about it?” And we also throw one another under the bus a lot, as witness the Kossacks blaming Teh Gheys for Ford’s loss. And various people in comment threads at Salon and the Prospect blaming New Hampshire women for voting for Sen. Clinton. Because throwing women, or gays, or atheists, or whoever, under the bus because OMG BACKLASH is so helpful to the cause.
Really, *if* a female candidate, or a black candidate, or one who supports gay rights, or an atheist or anyone else, triggers a backlash from (presumably) whites or men or Christians or or or, is the solution really to tell gays (women, blacks, atheists) to STFU and stand back because they are political poison? No. Rather, one can ask “is a backlash really going to be disastrous? If so, why? And what can we do about it?” For those who are STILL PO’d about Nader, it’s time to ask: Why did people vote for him? Why was it able to contribute to the 2000 disaster? And what can we do about it in the future? Aside, that is, from yapping and pointing fingers.
Why did people vote for him?
Because he’s a lying bullshit artist?
Ailurophile: Why did people vote for him? Why was it able to contribute to the 2000 disaster? And what can we do about it in the future?
Well, I didn’t vote for him in specific. I voted for the Green party platform. In particular, there were some things about the Clinton administration I found to be intolerable.
1: Perpetual saber-rattling and military intervention in Iraq. Don’t fool yourself. We were at war with Iraq during Clinton’s tenure as well.
2: The growing treatment of the left as criminals, FBI infiltration and subversion of leftist groups, the imposition of free-speech zones, and the complete lack of dialog regarding environmental and labor issues.
3: The state department’s willingness to sabotage environmental meetings that ran against the interests of American corporations, and threats of a trade war with the EU over its more restrictive environmental standards. The continued use of a “no proven harm” environmental standards contrasted with “proven safe.”
4: Dont ask don’t tell, and DOMA. You cant spend four years saying that I’m a threat to western civilization and expect to have my vote on Tuesday.
5: Undermining the welfare safety net.
6: A lack of dialog about election reform and campaign finance reform.
I do care about the disenfranchised voters in Indiana. That’s why I wrote to the Supreme Court as they make their decision.
You do know that judges aren’t allowed to read such letters about pending cases, don’t you?
I’ve been a registered voter since the day I turned 18 (let me put it this way: Joan Jett’s “I Love Rock & Roll” was in the Top 40 at the time), and have only missed voting a couple of times: a non-Prez year when my district moved polling places, and in 2004, when I moved overseas with less than a month’s notice, and forget to get a proxy ballot (see? Bush 2004 is actually all MY fault!).
My voting philosophy in the past few elections has been much like the Hippocratic oath: “First, do no harm.”
In keeping with that philosophy, I’d like to add, “Second, Ralph Nader should sit down and shut up.”