…is that, in watching him on “Meet the Press,” I found myself agreeing with just about everything he was saying about Democrats, Republicans, and the various issues. Compare his performance with the hesitant, fear-mongering, redundancy-filled appearance by Bush and you see what it’s like when a man of genuine intelligence is speaking. The only disingenuous statement he made was claiming that he shouldn’t be singled out for Gore’s loss in Florida because, hey, Pat Buchanan also got votes. Which is ridiculous since Buchanan’s voter base wouldn’t have voted for Gore if he’d been the only candidate available. Still, it’s annoying to find that I’m more in synch with his opinions than I am with Kerry et al, considering Nader’s unelectable.
I very much doubt Nader will have any serious impact this time. Democrats are so focused on wanting Bush out, I’d be amazed if even one half of one percent were willing to risk that by throwing away their votes on Nader again. Still, if I were the GOP, I’d be mobilizing volunteers to go work for Nader in order to try and get him on as many state ballots as possible, ’cause you never know. At the very least, Bush should send him a nice fruit basket.
PAD
• 
Did Nadar actually make an impact last time? With all the talk of Florida, I can’t remember.
KIP
Did Nadar actually make an impact last time? With all the talk of Florida, I can’t remember.
The basic thinking is this: If half the voters who voted for Nader had instead voted for Gore (i.e., if Nader hadn’t been on the ballot) then Gore would have slam-dunked Florida.
The fault in this logic is that it’s possible that the Nader voters–if Nader hadn’t been running–would have just stayed home rather than vote for Gore. So we’ll never know for sure.
PAD
Yeah, I had similar thoughts. What this otherwise intelligent and decent man can be thinking when the stakes are so high is beyond me.
It occurred to me afterwards that if Nader really wanted to make a difference and get his message out he could do one of two things, either one of which would be more effective than a doomed run for President.
1) He could run for an office he could actually win. Mayor of my old hometown of DC comes to mind simply because it’s reasonably high-profile and it would be easy to improve upon the records of previous office-holders.
2) Do a daily talk radio gig. Supposedly there’s a liberal radio network in the offing. Tell me such an organization wouldn’t jump at having Ralph Nader on weekday drive-times.
Bottom-line, there are other ways to fight the good fight than a quixotic run for the White House.
This run is more for ego than anything else and that is distasteful to me. If he were serious, he’d have SHOWN folks that he’s a viable leader by running for and winning another political office.
Yeah, his ideas are different…but can they work? Without at least a proof of concept, it’s just an ego trup.
This is the truly unfortunate thing about someone like Nader. Even though they operate at the fringes of their political spheres, they still manage to sound attractive to a significant minority of people. And it is not hard to make their targets sound attractive. I mean, which liberal wouldn’t want better standards of education, environmental care, racial and economic equity?
But the sad thing is that they have no realistic way of addressing these problems. You can’t just expect to legislate away basic human wants and needs with any great level of success, but that is pretty much what Nader and his ilk wants to do.
CAVEAT: I haven’t really paid much attention to Nader since the last American election, so I don’t know whether or not he’s changed his tactics somewhat. However one of the local parties (The Australian Greens) is set up in a similar fashion to his group and in fact consider him to be one of their “mentors”. Also, the fact that he is (considering?) running again implies that he hasn’t learnt much from the last elections.
Now to wait for the (Bush) = (eventual Democrat nominee) crowd to get whipped up again. After all, it worked *so* well for them the last time.
Back in 2001 or perhaps early 2002, I brought Nader onto an AOL live chat to talk about his latest book from Seven-Stories Press. I did the typing for him, fielding questions for him while wearing a headset to transcribe his responses in real time. Even then, he was obviously tired of the incessant “didn’t you wreck things for Gore?” questions. But I must admit that while I tried to pick other questions, I felt the same way. This time around, I feel the same, but more so. I suppose you could make a case that Gore didn’t seem all that different from Bush in 2000–but it’s a hëll of a lot harder to make that argument about Kerry (with his very liberal ADA score) versus the Bush-as-President we’ve all come to know.
But I think our amiable host is right in supposing Nader won’t be a major factor this time around. Not only are the Democrats far more energized than they were in 2000, but Nader has split from the Greens. Their party may not be huge, but they were already organized. Nader has to build a whole organization–and he has to do it with the ghost of the 2000 election debacle hovering over him. He’ll be irrelevant.
I really feel like I can’t fault Nader for 2000 – of all the little things that affected the Florida votes – the mass disenfranchisement of eligible, mostly minority voters, the poorly-designed ballots, the throwing out of overvotes that had clear intentions, etc. – Nader was only a relatively small part. It’s not like he knew ahead of time what was going to happen.
This time around, though, I’m not entirely sure I see what his point is, besides gratifying his own ego. He’s running without Green party affiliation, which invalidates one of the main priorities last time, and his message that the two parties are the same has been completely disproven by the intervening years.
This is going to end up being a stain on an otherwise distinguished career – though I don’t think it’ll affect the election much this time around either – because it represents a real step backwards. Had he simply said “I’ve made my point,” and continued to advocate liberal causes, he’d have had a lot of credibility and probably be able to make some genuine progress. All he’s going to generate now is resentment.
Here we go again. It reminds me of the college students my Dad teaches who complain that their bad grade in his class cost them a slot on the honor roll or a chance to graduate with their class. As though my Dad had any say in what they chose to do (or rather, chose *not* to do) in their other classes. That was Gore’s problem in 2000. If he had won his home state, or not held back in the debates, or piggybacked on Clinton’s accomplishments more, Florida would have never been a factor in the first place. And that’s not Nader’s fault.
-Dave O’Connell
I agree that the comment…
Pat Buchanan also got votes. doesn’t make sense. Perhaps he might have been better saying that the Socialist Party also got votes (I think at least 1,000). The number might not be quite right (I saw it flash up on the newschannels and didn’t write it down).
So the Socialist Party is as much at fault as Nader, I’d suppose.
A more interesting question (I’m not from the US), so please forgive my ignorance. Why didn’t more people, after hearing what Mr. Nader proposed, support him? I heard him speak and he made more sense than Gore and Bush combined. The issues he raised, if implemented, would bring a great improvement to the country. Gore sounded like he might at least keep things from getting worse and Bush, to anyone who actually paid attention, was not in the least competent.
I suppose that question could extend to why Dennis Kucinich & Al Sharpton got so little airtime, when they made more sense than the other lot (my opinion on this of course)
Thanks
I just saw the replay of Fox News Sunday (which plays opposite MTP in the morning – I really hate that), and it was pointed out that Nader only impacted the electoral votes of two states: Florida and New Hampshire (assuming all Nader voters voted and all went to Gore). Like everyone else, no one figures Nader to have much of an impact against an energized Democratic base.
However, I also really hate the assumption that Nader cost the Democrats the election as much as I hate the same assumption that Perot cost the Republicans the election. Votes do not belong to a party or candidate. If you like Nader, vote for him. The only way for a third party to ever get a toe-hold is if enough people actually buck the system that the two primary parties have institutionalized.
I don’t know much about his run this time, but in 2000, Nader’s stated reason for running was to get the Green Party enough votes to get it a permanent place on the ballot & thereby breaking the 2 party system.
As for Nader “Taking votes away from Gore”, I say bullsh*t. If people didn’t vote for Gore, it’s because Gore didn’t convince them to. Just look at all the opportunities Gore passed on that could have gotten him thousands more votes.
Two major opportunities he passed on were:
1) not playing on the successes of the Clinton administration, instead of distancing himself from them. Remember, despite all the noise being made by the right, Clinton was tremendously popular.
2) At the Republican Convention Bush said “we’ve had 8 years of peace & prosperity, and it’s time for it to end”. If Gore had used this in a commercial, it would have been pure gold for his campaign.
A lot of people have mentioned above that they think Nader’s run this time around is about ego. Is it at all possible the man has a passion for making a change and he believes enough in his convictions to put it all on the line?
“As for Nader “Taking votes away from Gore”, I say bullsh*t. If people didn’t vote for Gore, it’s because Gore didn’t convince them to.” -Michael Brunner
Excellent statement.
Admitedly, I don’t know too much about Nader or his philosophies, but the mere fact that he is another option in a stale two party system is refreshing. The more options we have as voters, the less likely it will be that we’ll be faced with a “lesser of two evils” situation.
Monkeys
not Gerbils
I’ll agree with the chorus of folks who say that Nader didn’t cost Gore the election. Gore lost the election by himself. Sure, Nader got 2.7% of the popular vote and impacted the electoral votes of two states (and that last one is a BIG maybe, because quite a few of those people who voted for Nader, as PAD said, may not have voted at all if Nader hadn’t ran).
I’ll also agree with PAD…I don’t think Nader will have any significant impact. The distaste for the Bush Administration among everyone I know, from the Republicans who think he’s being fiscally irresponsible and not definitive on social issues to the Democrats who don’t like his political attitudes, is substantial. I think Bush has moved people everyone to have stronger opinions about their government, on both sides of the aisle. I think the race for the White House will still be close.
The only thing that might push Bush over the top would be the capture of Osama bin Laden. Don’t get me wrong, I’d LOVE to see bin Laden captured, but I think some Americans would attribute that to Bush, instead of the intelligence community and the military strategists.
I listen to Nader, and I think, “Yeah. Everything he just said is true. I agree. I completely agree. But he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hëll of winning.” I honestly just hope that Bush doesn’t win, not because I don’t like the man, but only because I don’t agree with his political stances on the issues of the day, and think the country has been negatively transformed under his watch. Is it all his fault? Nope. But I’ve been patient with our President. Now I want to see what someone else can do. 😉
Well put, Mr. Cravens. But, as far as one of your last comments about Nader not having a snowball’s chance in hëll, despite the fact that you agree with him-therein lies the reason we are pretty much still stuck with two parties and two candidates. Because, even if people agree with someone and would love to see them in the White House, they are conditioned to not vote for him because he’s not one of the big two. It sucks. It really sucks. Because if all of us out here actually voted for who we liked regardless of party name, we’d at least start a change in the way things work. If every election a non-Democrat or non-Republican got just a few more votes, sooner or later people would take them more seriously and not consider them a throw away vote.
Monkeys.
A lot of people have mentioned above that they think Nader’s run this time around is about ego. Is it at all possible the man has a passion for making a change and he believes enough in his convictions to put it all on the line?
Show me, don’t tell me. Show that you can handle a major municipality or work with others in a plcae like DC. That’s why I didn’t think Clark was a viable candidate (and to a great extent that was ego as well).
For years Nader has said (to great applause) that both major parties are beholden to the special interests and major corporations. But when he goes and actually DOES something about it he get crucified by liberals for “stealing” votes from the lesser of two evils.
From his point of view there may be long term benefits to third party candidates continuously costing the Democrats the presidency–it will force them to move further to the left to assuage those voters who keep abandoning them for Nader and those who will follow.
I don’t think that would be good for the party but Nader does and is acting accordingly. Visionaries don’t always think on the same kind of time constraints as the rest of us.
That bit about “maybe Nader voters would have stayed home if Nader hadn’t run” doesn’t fly if you look at the numbers. Nader got 97,448 votes in Florida; as we all know, the recorded final score in that state had Bush winning by 537 votes. So unless you’re prepared to believe that 96,911 of the 97,448 Nader voters would have stayed home that day, Gore would be President today had Nader not been on the ballot in Florida.
Ha. My single favorite comment on Nader’s reemergence is at Tim Byrd’s blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/outlawmoon/
Vote spliting has caused some serious problem here in Canada. It has allowed the ruling liberals to stay in power long after they should have been shown the door. Now we have scandal after scandal and no viable alternative.
DonBoy, your also assuming that some of those people who voted for Nader would NOT have voted for Bush had Nader not been on the ballot. Some of them may have voted for Gore, some for Bush, and some wouldn’t have voted at all. In the end, though, I think saying that anyone stole votes from anyone else is silly because that person earned those votes (or had a core of blind followers who supported him and were going to vote for him no matter what), and if one of the other candidates had convinced those voters they were a better choice, then they would have earned them instead. To say that “if so-and-so wasn’t on the ballot then…” is saying that either diversity and greater options for choosing a president is bad, or that nonDem and nonRepub candidates shouldn’t be allowed to be on the ballot unless no one is going to vote for them anyway.
Monkeys
Man, I’m posting a lot today. Sorry.
At the Republican Convention Bush said “we’ve had 8 years of peace & prosperity, and it’s time for it to end”. If Gore had used this in a commercial, it would have been pure gold for his campaign.
Did he really say that? I know there was a funny Onion bit on that theme but the Onion, though funny, isn’t an actual news source.
If true, then yeah, they missed a good one. I’ve often thought I could do better ads for either party than the ones they presumably pay big bucks for.
DonBoy, your also assuming that some of those people who voted for Nader would NOT have voted for Bush had Nader not been on the ballot. Some of them may have voted for Gore, some for Bush, and some wouldn’t have voted at all.
I suppose some Nader voters might have had Bush as their second choice, but, again, out of almost 100,000 votes, I’m comfortable concluding that the spread in favor of Gore would have more that 537 votes, stay-at-homes included. Of the rest of what you say: I’ve said nothing like anything you mention, although others have gotten into it a little. I’m just working on “What would have happened if Nader had not been running?”, not “What should our feelings be about third party candidacies and the general state of the American election system?”
But I will say this: in the final round of any winner-take-all election, the more choices you have that are close to your preferences, the worse off you are, for exactly the reason we’re discussing here; it makes it more likely that someone you definitely don’t want will win.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a film clip of Bush making that statement & being cheered by the crowd (But I’ll admit I could be wrong & might be repeating an urban legend. I haven’t been able to find attribution for the quote yet.).
Even if he didn’t, using it would be no different than all the “Al Gore said he invented the internet” nonsense. The truth on that one is that Gore was one of the main proponents of (& fought to get funding for) the program that eventually became the internet.
What will be interesting to see is if the disenheartened Deaniacs flock to Nader, or simply fade back into the Internet woodwork.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Perot.
“But I will say this: in the final round of any winner-take-all election, the more choices you have that are close to your preferences, the worse off you are, for exactly the reason we’re discussing here; it makes it more likely that someone you definitely don’t want will win. ” -DonBoy
Good point. I hadn’t actually thought of it in that light. I still think more options is better, but it all seems to be a vicious cycle. More choices could mean more honest candidates (or candidates that would take the best of both current parties), but it could also cause polarization, winding up on two different sides again in order to please as many people as possible. You have given me something to think about. Thanks.
Monkeys.
Toby said: “The more options we have as voters, the less likely it will be that we’ll be faced with a “lesser of two evils” situation.”
‘Lesser of two evils’ is the exact phrase that I use when I tell people how long it’s been since I’ve voted for President. The sad fact is that even the ‘third party’ candidates don’t really fit my idea of a good presidential candidate. Which infuriates the hëll out of me.
To make matters worse, we have these idiots telling us that not voting is wrong. Perhaps that would be true if the ballot had an ‘Each Candidate is a Scumbag’ option. Why should I waste my vote on someone I don’t believe in? The very notion that it’s our duty to vote no matter what is just plain ignorant. Rather, I believe it is our duty to elect candidates that will represent “We, the People” instead anyone who can foot the bill for services rendered.
Sounds like I’d be a Nader supporter on the surface. And, yes, I agree with alot of what the man has to say but as other’s have stated he has no ‘work history.’
(Here’s a toast to Toby)
Gorillas. With poor depth perception.
Salutations,
Mitch
I’m sorry but Nader lost me when he started talking like an ultra-extreme left winger saying that Bush should be impeached. Screw that. Nader sounding like Dean is not a good thing.
Kerry on the otherhand will not get my vote because he voted for
1.the iraq-war 2.the patriot act
3.no child left behind 4. free trade and several others. That’s not what bothers me, what bothers me is that he is such a flaccid wimp that he won’t defend his own decisions to vote for these things and passes them off as the republicans fault. Sorry but if it comes down to Nader Kerry or Bush, I’m gonna have to vote for Bush.
If only the democrats could get somebody with balls. Oh well, maybe Hillary will have bigger balls then Kerry in ’08
-a pìššëd øff democrat
BTW,
The only thing that might push Bush over the top would be the capture of Osama bin Laden.
I direct your attention thusly:
http://www.sundaytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,9353,8752173-28778,00.html
and
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5728.htm
Hmmm … and the election just around the corner & Bush’s numbers falling.
I learned my lesson in 1980 after I voted for John Anderson. Much as I might love to see some third-party candidate win, I will not throw away my vote if it means my second choice will lose to the third candidate. (And this from someone who will vote for a dogcatch before she votes for Bush.)
Yeah, I’d read those articles online about bin Laden supposedly being surrounded. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. It’d be a lucky coincidence. Like I said, I’ll cheer with they capture bin Laden, but you just know Bush would take that film clip, put in in a TV ad with some words like “Bush stands for freedom. Freedom against tyranny. He brought to justice the terrorist behind the 9/11 attacks. Vote Bush.” 😉 I’d chalk any capture of bin Laden up to the military or intelligence community, but maybe that’s just me. 🙂
Toby: To a certain extent, I absolutely agree with you. We are trained and conditioned to choose one of the the candidates from the big two parties. But you know, I like the two party system, in theory. In reality, I think that both parties have become so much the puppets of special interests, private and public, that I honestly don’t trust either one. When I said that Nader didn’t have a chance of winning, I guess I was referring to the fact that Nader has, since the 70s, been perceived as very liberal, and like it or not, about half of all American voters have conservative leanings on at least some issues which would compel them to avoid a vote for Nader, just as they avoided a vote for McGovern in the 70s and Mondale and Dukakis in the 80s. I think even if you get most of the liberals to vote for Nader, he’d still have hesitant conservatives to deal with, and I don’t think he’d win.
I like the principle of the two-party system, as I said. But because we’re at present so polarized as a society, with 50% of voters on the right side of the political spectrum, and 50% on the left side of the spectrum (with varying degrees in between), the only candidate who can win is moderate. Nader doesn’t seem to be perceived as moderate.
So, once again, I’m faced with a dilemma. I don’t want to re-elect Bush. I’m not a huge follower of either Kerry or Edwards. I want my vote to count. So what do I do? You know, I know there are some people who visit this site who watch “the West Wing.” I’m reminded of a first or second season episode, with a flashback to when Leo was campaigning with Bartlet for the nomination. Leo said something like “I’m sick and tired of voting for the lesser of who cares.”
I’m sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, the lesser of who gives a dámņ? I want a President I can admire; a President who is one of the smartest people in the room at any given moment; a President willing to do the right thing for the American public, regardless of what the party leaders would say or what the lobbyists or special interests might think; a President of principles, compassion, intellect, and commitment.
You give me a Presidential candidate who meets those criteria, and I’ll vote for them in a heartbeat, Republican, Democrat, or Independent. 😀 I’m so sick of watching the political games, the attack ads, the mudslinging, the dance we call American politics. Show me a candidate who displays that he is above such behavior, and like I said…he or she will have my vote in a heartbeat.
But what do I know? I’m just a law student.
Monkeys. 🙂
What will be interesting to see is if the disenheartened Deaniacs flock to Nader, or simply fade back into the Internet woodwork.
That might depend on who the eventual Democratic nominee is and what happens at the convention.
This particular Dean supporter will swallow a live toad before he votes for Nader at this point — as others have said above, for him it now seems much more about ego than about policy. I’m not voting for that.
The two-party system is a major, major problem, however. Any candidate who seriously advocates switching to instant-runoff voting on a national level is probably someone who’d have my vote for life.
It would have removed all the claims of Nader/Buchanan/Perot “handing the election over to” whomever, for one thing. My suspicion is that if we’d had IRV in 2000, (1) the Green Party might have gotten a lot more votes (since people wouldn’t have been worried about “throwing them away”), and (2) Gore would have been an obvious winner.
(What would’ve happened in ’92, I wonder? Who was the second choice of most Perot voters?)
TWL
There are few things more pathetic than listening to a democrat complain about how Nader cost Gore the election last time around. You know who cost Gore the election? Gore. It wasn’t Nader’s fault the democrats nominated such a light weight who was unable to keep democrats from jumping ship at the first chance.
And now they’ve gone and nominated Kerry, who wouldn’t even be able to beat Gore on his best day. When the democrats lose again (and I can’t see how they won’t), hopefully they’ll finally realize all the blame is on the jáçkáššëš they’ve chosen to represent their party in the elections.
John Kerry? They think they’re going to beat Bush with John Kerry? Hëll, I’m not even sure I’d prefer Kerry over Bush anyway.
Bring on Nader. Now that’s a person who deserves my vote.
Why did so many democrats abandon Gore in favor of Nader? Because sometimes it’s nice to vote for a candidate you actually respect, instead of voting for a candidate you just hate least.
Nader didn’t split the vote, the democrats did.
By the way, this is sorta related to the topic at hand. I was watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart a week or two ago (the only TV news worth watching!) and I saw that guest he had on about the buying of the President 2004, promoting the book about lifetime patrons to each of the candidates, including President Bush.
Here’s a link to the site. To see the career patrons section, scroll down, and on the left you’ll see the candidates. Click on a name and you have various options.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/
Bush’s number one career patron? Drumroll please…well, let’s just say it starts with an E, ends with an N, and has NRO in the middle. 😉
Interesting site, to say the least.
I share mi life between Italy and Argentina.
At the moment, I know better the candidates for the U.S. President than the ones for my countries.
I just wanted to say what someone once said in Italy, and that the president of United States is so important in the world that is unfair only americans can vote for him.
Great. Nader’s running again.
He’s going to attract all the wimps and losers who are too dámņëd weak to stand up and make a choice between Bush or the Democratic candidate. Instead, they’ll choose the one likely to lose, not only flushing their vote down the šhìŧŧër, but in fact HARMING the chance to remove Bush from the White House.
Bush already has the inbred, knee-slapping, sister-screwing hillbilly vote. Now he’s making sure that the intelligent people of this country whose interests do not lie in big-money don’t vote democrat.
By that, of course, I mean the idealistic yet extremely naive college student who thinks that voting independent will make a difference.
Here’s hoping someone will put a bullet in Nader before November rolls around.
The Big Lie, or Why your vote doesn’t Count
New York city has a population of aproximately 8 million people, I believe everyone will agree with this.
There are aproximately 3 million registered voters in New York City, thats all five boroughs, thats about 38% of the population of the city.
During the 2001 Mayors Race, 1.5 million voters came out to vote, or about 1/2 of the total registered voters of the city. This equals 20% of the population of the city.
Mayor Blumeberg received 48% of the vote and won the Mayorial Election about 700,000 votes. This is equal to about 8% of the total population of the city.
So in effect less than 10% of the people are choosing who is going to represent the other 90%.
Conclusion, the reason your vote doesn’t count, is because you don’t use it!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyone who wishes to see the results for 2001 Mayrs race or any other race can view it at the NYC Board of Elections Web site
http://www.vote.nyc.ny.us
Most states by this point have election data available on the web, you can find it easliy by going to
*state’sname*.gov
and searching for election results.
SPB
I voted for Nader in 2000. I will vote for him again this time unless Abe Lincoln or Walt Disney is revivified and placed on the ballot (in the latter case, after he stabs Mike Eisner dead for the evil things the Mouse has done in Unca Walt’s name). Nader is a crotchety old ballbuster who scarcely brooks introductions to arguments against his positions before he breaks in with his standard diatribes, but he is honest and looking for something better in this country. He is a voice of dissent where it is very much needed, in a country where vaguely bìŧçhìņg about iceberg tips of issues is as close as most folks ever get to civic duty. The idea that your vote is wasted unless it is spent on someone who might actually win is the most ludicrous, asinine argument anyone could possibly make. It is the vote of someone afraid to be in the minority. It is the white man’s burden. Vote for what you believe in. If what you believe in is George Bush going home, then vote for Kerry. He will bend you over just like Dubya does, albeit in a different direction. In my case, I believe in the goal, however faint it might be, of more intelligent public discourse and government by the people and, for a change, for the people. Nader wouldn’t do jack all for U.S. foreign policy, but he talks about the things that no one else is talking about, things that very much need talking about, and for that he will get my vote.
The idea that your vote is wasted unless it is spent on someone who might actually win is the most ludicrous, asinine argument anyone could possibly make. It is the vote of someone afraid to be in the minority.
I’m thinking not. Personally, I’m not afraid to be in the minority. I’ve taken stands on any number of positions that I know aren’t shared by the majority of Americans.
I’m thinking of it more as the vote of someone who just doesn’t want four more years of Bush and firmly believes Nader, with zero years of governing experience and zero political support, not only can’t stop that from happening, but could conceivably help make it a reality just by his presence.
PAD
“To make matters worse, we have these idiots telling us that not voting is wrong. Perhaps that would be true if the ballot had an ‘Each Candidate is a Scumbag’ option. Why should I waste my vote on someone I don’t believe in? The very notion that it’s our duty to vote no matter what is just plain ignorant. Rather, I believe it is our duty to elect candidates that will represent “We, the People” instead anyone who can foot the bill for services rendered. “
I think that you should ask for a write in ballot. I’d also suggest that even if the third party candidates don’t thrill you, voting for one of them sends the message “I’m still here, Im pìššëd, I’m not going to roll over and accept the two party majority, and I’m open to different, innovative ideas.”
I’m sick of hearing the same complaints year after year. When citizens have had enough they will either: 1) Remember a third party candidate named Lincoln and realize that third party candidates *can* win or 2) Use the initiative process to make instant runoff/preferential voting available in their state. Anyone know of such initiatives under way?
Re: Nader and special interests. Well, at least according to Andrew Tobias writing about his attempt to make California auto insurance 1) no-fault and 2) paid for via an addition to the gas purchase price, Nader certainly seemed to be in thick with trial lawyers.
As for Gore’s Internet comment, I’ve read his exact comment. While it doesn’t go so far to claim he created the Internet, it struck me at the time and now that it was an exaggeration of his impact. Yes, he helped get funding…right at the time when the Internet was about to explode for many other reasons. A critical mass of recent college graduates who’d had access in school but lost it when they graduated. PCs really getting into the homes. Increased bandwidth. AOL/Compuserve/Prodigy starting to take off. Etc. Yeah, Gore helped some, but not in any core or truly significant way that wouldn’t have happened within a year or so anyway. Given some of the Internet things the Clinton administration did pass (Communications Decency Act, for example), my take on Gore was that he understood the Internet just well enough to think that it had to regulated and controlled.
When citizens have had enough they will either: 1) Remember a third party candidate named Lincoln and realize that third party candidates *can* win
If Lincoln were running today, voters would be turned off because he’s not telegenic enough, and reporters would be having a field day writing about his homely, big spending, weird wife.
PAD
PAD,
Re: “Andrew” who posted “Here’s hoping someone will put a bullet in Nader before November rolls around.”
I realize you addressed inappropriate comments in a previous thread. Also, you wrote movingly of “taking threats seriously.”
Does this constitute the yelling of “fire” in a crowded theatre?
Does it belong on this board?
My own feeling is it has no place in a civil discussion. Substitute “Bush” for “Nader” and Andrew gets a well-deserved visit from the Secret Service.
I’m thinking of it more as the vote of someone who just doesn’t want four more years of Bush and firmly believes Nader, with zero years of governing experience and zero political support, not only can’t stop that from happening, but could conceivably help make it a reality just by his presence.
But if you find yourself agreeing with Nader, why not vote for him so your voice can be heard, even if it is in a losing cause? If everyone actually voted for the candidate they really liked, maybe elections would be a more honest poll of public opinion. Instead, US politics is “Column A” or “Column B”.
The only people that can be blamed for the Bush presidency are the people who actually voted for the goofball.
You don’t really think that Nader meant that Buchanan’s voters would have voted for Gore, do you?
Bush already has the inbred, knee-slapping, sister-screwing hillbilly vote.
Here’s hoping someone will put a bullet in Nader before November rolls around.
Wow, you’re quite the charmer. Maybe the DNC can hire you to write ads for them. A reference to incest and a plea for the asassination of someone who has the temerity to (gasp)run against your guy. Wow. THAT doesn’t sound at all insane.
I feel the same way. I really didn’t know Nader’s position on *anything* ’til a few weeks ago, and really, about most things, he’s spot on. Ðámņëd intelligent. I just think he’s going about things the wrong way, in the same way that Ross Perot had the right idea but the wrong methods.
I was more in tune with the Reform platform (pre-Buchanan) than any other, and while it was Perot that got me motivated to actually vote at all, I realize now that anyone making a direct run for the Top Job as a 3d party/independent candidate is futile… that focusing on the lower levels of government first and working up would build a voter base that just doesn’t exist by shooting for the top.
I think Nader would serve his views better if he tackled the Dem. party directly, and worked from within to make changes. He’s obviously not a fan favourite with most Dems right now obviously, but he’d accomplish alot more, and save himself serious $$$, if he made the attempt.
I don’t think he’ll make anywhere near the same impact he had in 2000, as there aren’t as many who believe his line that there’s “no difference” between the parties.
For once, I’m actually pleasantly surprised that there is some intelligent and not so much “jumping on the band wagon” going on here in the discussions. I personally agree with Mr. Cravens; give me a candidate who is actually worth voting for. I’m not a law student, but have similar views from my own life experiences, and believe that not voting doesn’t really mean a whole helluva lot either. I also believe that voting (president only of course) doesn’t really mean jack squat either… And before everyone starts jumping on me for it, this is why.
The Electoral College. There is absolutely no reason to vote for president if your vote can be used against you. Reminds me of an election that was held in Iraq recently. The only name on the ballot was Saddam Hussein, and some people with automatic rifles went to your door and told you to vote, or else… Well, maybe not quite the same thing…
I’m sure I’m in the minority, however I fully remember sitting in my high school government class and studying the constitution and thinking that this Electoral College was a joke now. I can understand why it was created back then, but now it’s a sham. I vote, then my vote is recast by someone else, and it doesn’t have to be the way I wanted it to count to begin with?
A lot of people throw Florida 2000 up when that argument is made, but I still believe that the whole chad bit in Florida wouldn’t have been anywhere near as publicized if there were no Electoral College to begin with. Why? It wouldn’t have mattered at that point. With the internet and computer technology the way it is now, popular votes are not only feasable, but becoming more and more apparent to be the “correct” thing to do. Would this affect campaigning and voter turn out? I would sure hope so.
One republican nominee and one democrat nominee actually forced to work and convince the American public that they are the right person instead of relying on electoral votes… *Gasp!*
As for Gore’s Internet comment, I’ve read his exact comment. While it doesn’t go so far to claim he created the Internet, it struck me at the time and now that it was an exaggeration of his impact. Yes, he helped get funding…right at the time when the Internet was about to explode for many other reasons. A critical mass of recent college graduates who’d had access in school but lost it when they graduated. PCs really getting into the homes. Increased bandwidth. AOL/Compuserve/Prodigy starting to take off. Etc. Yeah, Gore helped some, but not in any core or truly significant way that wouldn’t have happened within a year or so anyway. Given some of the Internet things the Clinton administration did pass (Communications Decency Act, for example), my take on Gore was that he understood the Internet just well enough to think that it had to regulated and controlled.
You show very little actual grasp of what Gore did or said. Let’s look at a quote from someone actually on the hill during the development of the ‘net to get a better idea:
NEWT GINGRICH: In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a “futures group”—the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the ’80s began to actually happen.
Gore didn’t just help get some funding wwhen the Internet was about to explode as a cultural force, he was instrumental in having it built in the first place.
The Washington Post’s David Maraniss, August 2000, on CNN’s Reliable Sources: “Gore really was instrumental in developing the Internet. He was the one congressman who understood the whole thing in the ’70s, when no other congressman gave a darn about it.”
Martin Walker in The Guardian, 12/30/88: American computing scientists are campaigning for the creation of a “superhighway” which would revolutionise data transmission. Legislation has already been laid before Congress by Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee, calling for government funds to help establish the new network, which scientists say they can have working within five years, at a cost of Dollars 400 million.
Nine months later, the Wash Post reported that the Bush administration “plans to unveil tomorrow an ambitious plan to spend nearly $2 billion enhancing the nation’s technological know-how, including the creation of a high-speed data ‘superhighway’ that would link more than 1,000 research sites around the country.” This network was “comparable to an interstate highway system for electronic data,” the paper said—and it noted that “a similar plan has been proposed by Sen. Albert Gore (D-Tenn.), whose legislation also proposes creating a vast electronic library that could be accessed by users seeking federally gathered information.”
On March 21 in the Washington Post, Jason Schwartz quoted several Internet pioneers, including Vinton Cerf, the man often called “the father of the Internet.” Cerf praised Gore’s role in the Net’s development. “I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president.”
And what did Gore, who worked hard on getting th Internet built from the earliest days and was the main guy at the head of the charge, actually say?
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth, environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
Oh, that braggart and liar.
Moreover, absolutely nothing was made of his statement, made on March 9 to Wolf Blitzer, until two days later, when the Associated Press started reporting on a press release from the Republican National Committee which claimed Gore had called himself the father of the Internet. After that, he was constantly misquoted as having said he “invented” the Internet, and we know how many idiots bought that chestnut and kept it near and dear to their ill-informed little hearts.
No offense to any idiots who might be reading.
Canada is faced with a similar problem. We’ve got someome angling to become Prime Minister who has zero political experience, Belinda Stronach, a blonde airhead (has anyone here listened to her? all she can do is mouth the pre-scripted responses prepared for her by the Old Boys backing her) whose only achievement is running daddy’s company. Fortunately, she has the backing of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, possibly one of the most despised politicians ever. This should ensure Stronach’s defeat and have her looking for another hobby soon. Of course, this would mean another four years of the undeserving Liberals, but there’s no help for it until Canadians (not unlike Americans) start to think seriously in terms of people OTHER than the two main parties.