Nader and friends

Ok, so i'm walking down the street with bella420 on a nice, quiet, kinda chilly sunday morning, we go sit on a bench when this girl starts attacking us about supporting nader. She's saying that since we're voting for Kerry we've got blood on our hands!!!! All because he's got corporate supporters, unlike Nader, I try to be calm and point out that corporations have been supporting both dems and repubs for years. I also point out that i voted for Nader in 2000 and I wish i could afford to now, but i can't right now. She starts shouting about revolutionaries(meaning Nader) fighting losing battles and turning them in to winning battles and how many children have died in the Iraqi conflict and I just lose my shit, I tell her that unfortunately children die in any violent conflict and by her logic they should've never bothered with the revolutionary war because of the babies who would've died. She kinda ran off yelling and bothering some 17yr olds who can't even vote.
I tell this story because all you Nader supporters out there need to realize something, tomorrow is a very important day, a day that will hopefully change the country. I realize it won't change much, but if Kerry wins, we will no longer have a religious zealot in charge, a stubborn, never wrong, arrogant, lump of a man who believed there wouldn't be any casualties in the iraqi conflict. I'm proudly registered green, I wish i could afford to vote for a third party candidate, but i live in Colorado, which has been swinging left and right for the last year, we've got one of the most contested senate seats up this year and we cannot afford to let a beer shilling psycho in(pete coors), and we sure as hell don't need Nader trying to take away our votes for Kerry. Nader's whole point last time was to get 5% of the popular vote, he said he wouldn't campaign in battleground states, Gore and the dems say he's taking away their votes, so he starts campaigning in florida! I know that florida wasn't entirely his fault, but dammit, just like a politician, he lied and did what he said he wouldn't. And now, he's actively, and psychotically it seems, campaigning in highly contested states like this one. This time around, his party's abandoned him, some of his biggest supporters have abandoned him, hell, Micheal Moore and Bill Maher got on their hands and knees before him and begged him not to run this time, but goddammit, he is anyway. I wish i still lived in Maryland(it will deffinitely go democrat, again), I could vote for someone better for the job, but i know it sure as hell wouldn't be Nader, he's proven to be no better than the other asses in politics.

this guy is like a spoiled 10 year old trust fund baby

Some of the other candidates are actually doing what Nader has failed to do. They're refusing to run in battleground states, and asking their supporters to vote for Kerry instead of themselves. This is very honorable of them, and damned if it doesn't make me want to vote for them some more.

But whatever, I'm in Georgia, so Bush will win, so I'm going to give Badnarik an electoral high five.

I voted for Perot because I was mad at GHW Bush and Clinton got elected. I didnt think Clinton would really win or I wouldnt have done it.

I'm not going to critisize Clinton today, I'm just saying be really sure you can live with the results of your decision.

Remember folks, voting is where you earn an audience for when you complain about the government. I'll be looking for you at the polls (even if you dont agree with me!).

you should have told her you wre voting for bush just to piss her off for preaching to you!!!!

Got to say I was at a rally once where Nader spoke, and I was impressed with what he had to say. Clear, concise, logic.

It's a shame he seems to be in self-destruct mode and repelling so many people at the moment.

I'm not a Nader supporter, but I think I understand his reasoning for campaigning in the swing states. I believe it is his perception that the Democratic party has ignored the progressive left in favor of pursuing centrist status-quo policies because they assume the left will always vote Democratic as the "least bad" viable candidate. This is a valid and understandable perception of our country.

The "least bad" maxim suggests that the Democratic party, over time, will maximize its political influence through positioning itself just slightly to the left of whoever the Republican candidate is, dragging along everyone from the far left up to that maximization point. I think this is at least a sane way of looking at our current political situation. If someone like Nader believes that the least bad maxim will continuously drive policy far away from where his constituency thinks it should be, he's got to pursue some other means of influencing that policy.

By repeatedly "spoiling" the Democrats in swing states, I suspect that he hopes to demonstrate that the least bad maxim isn't a guaranteed path to victory. That for the Democrats to stop losing due to "spoiler" votes they will have to incorporate some of the progressive's concerns.

Again, I'm not a Nader supporter. I will be voting for Kerry. But I do think that it is sane and understandable what Nader is doing. Accepting four years of what he considers very bad policy rather than simply bad policy in the hope that the "least bad" slippery slope doesn't continue and that progressive considerations will be taken into account in 2008.

The reason Nader is "campaigning" in swing states is because the GOP is funding him to do so.

Also, even if you agree that the Democrats are ignoring the "progressive left", if that's a synonym for Nader's support, why is he polling around 1% nationally? Why should the Democrats tell moderates to fuck off in order to pander to the tiny number of ultra-leftists and bored college students who probably won't vote Democrat anyway?

You really think that people like John Kerry, Howard Dean and Denis Kucinich are "just slightly to the left" of GW Bush, John Ashcroft and Rick Santorum?

Again, the GOP is funding Nader in swing states. It's obvious from the laughable attempts the Nader campaign's made in most swing states that he doesn't have the real support to get on the ballot without funding from the same scumbags that were donating to Swift Boat Veterans For Truth over the summer.

I'm also a bit baffled as to what "progressive concerns" the Democratic Party should incorporate.

it's confusing because that's not why nader's running at all. he wants bush to win. he looks at the polls and notices that 50% of americans still believe the words they hear when bush's mouth is moving, and thinks that another 4 years of bush-- preferably with another stolen election under his belt-- is just the kick in the ass this country needs to wake the hell up. he's happy to accept republican cash because, in the short term, he and bush have the same goal. he doesn't want to be president, he wants a revolution to start.

I happen to agree with his both his assessment of the american public and his logic, I just still think he's overestimated the bush administration's ability to fuck things up and underestimated their PR prowess. I'm voting kerry.

I wish one of these days we could get a GOOD 3rd party candidate. I'd also like to see good 4th and 5th party candidates and instant run-off elections as well but one step at a time.

[Edited on Nov 01, 2004 by Hank_Scorpio]

A) Kerry or Bush.

B) One of these two men will be elected President tomorrow sometime this week after tomorrow at some point.

Those are your TWO choices. Why? See B.



[Edited on Nov 01, 2004 by Keith]

So then Nader's been blatantly lying to his supporters and the media when he constantly says he wants GW Bush to lose?

Gosh, that's a man of integrity for you.

I don't think at this point that Nader honestly expects a "revolution" to happen. He's just in it for his ego, and for his legacy.

And I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to the neo-Marxist idea that it's okay for our government to get worse and worse and worse because it'll spark a "revolution".

Because what if that "revolution" never comes? Should the "progressive left" be reduced to supporting an ever more oppressive right-wing government because maybe some day our prince will come?

Then, there's zero guarantee that this "revolution", if it actually ever does happen,
will be the happy fun leftist pipe dream revolution. When nations get bad enough off that radical change seems like a good idea, that radical change isn't always a good one. Weimar Germany, anyone?

that's why I'm voting kerry.

More like a saturday morning cartoon show with a lead in to every cartoon short by a Mr Rogers type character played by Ralph Nader.


Nader and Friends

But where will CBS get the HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of dead babies??

I posted this elsewhere but still:

Vote Libertarian!

i would respect nadar so much more if he said from the outset of the race i wont run in a battle ground state.. but he dident.. so i dont...

"I... AM... NADAR ... ALL WILL WEAR SEATBELTS AND DISPAIR!"

What evidence do you have that this is why he's campaigning in swing states? Again, I'm no Nader supporter, but I think this statement is intellectually disingenuous. Nader has a well-known public record of over forty years opposing financial influence over politics. The guy has an almost pathalogical disdain for money. The argument that he's campaigning in swing states because he's being paid to spoil the democrats is so counter to his demonstrated psychology that it would take substantial evidence to credit. To my knowledge, the only evidence there was that started this line of thinking is that 4% of Nader's funding came from people who also donated to the Republicans. This exact same group of people also donated money to Democrats (more than they donated to Nader). This group of entities donated to all three candidates: most to Republicans, second most to Democrats and third most to Nader. Never have I read anything suggesting that Nader was paid specifically to campaign in swing states.

I'd say the reason Nader's polling so low is because people who are aligned with most of Nader's policy positions abhor Bush and are terrified/repulsed by the idea of him winning another election. People are bitter at the notion of Nader being a spoiler and are therefore fully backing the only candidate who can dethrone Bush.

I'm not saying that Democrats should "tell moderates to fuck off", I'm saying that it is not insane or necessarily an ego-trip that Nader is campaigning in swing states. If Nader has policy issues that he doesn't feel are represented by the Democratic party, and he believes this is the only (or at least the best) way for them to eventually be brought to table for discussion/consideration with the Democratic party, then it can be considered rational.

Dean and Kucinich were rejected in the primaries. People/policies that don't make it through the filter to be put forward against the Republican opponent are demonstrations of the concern, not evidence against it. I think there are massive, incontrovertible differences between Kerry and Bush. I also think that the platform that Kerry is running on doesn't address many issues of concern to Nader.

People who think that Kerry is running on a progressive, or even liberal, platform are misinformed. He's running on a pro-Iraq War, increased military spending, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, pro-globalization platform with no interest in political reform, removal of corporate influence through funding and lobbyists, and little movement on living wage.

I'm not really the guy to make this case, since frankly if I had to define my political beliefs it would be as a moderate libertarian (which don't really exist). In any case, I'm certainly not a progressive.

Here are a few that I know of, at least:
Anti Iraq War
Anti Patriot Act
Living wage
Various third-party, de-gerrymandering, and other voting reforms
Increasing government accountability and transparency
Demilitarization
Reducing corporate influence over politics and our lives
Revisiting our Middle East policy and unquestioning support of Israel
Revisiting our relationships with Saudi Arabia
Gay marriage

But if you read Howard Zinn, Chalmers Johnson and Noam Chomsky (some of the big name lefts), they have a whole slew of concerns about the Democratic party. There are a ton of concerns that they don't feel are being addressed. Those three all supported Nader in 2000 based on confluence of ideas. As with most people on the left, they are adamant about supporting Kerry this time to make sure that Bush is beaten. I fully support anyone who takes this position. I believe in the "anyone but Bush" philosophy. I also think that it is not insane nor ego that drives Nader to take his position, but a belief that this is the best way of eventually getting those left positions on the negotiating table. I think it is at least sane to look at what the Democrats in Congress have voted for over the past couple of years and feel that they aren't representing progressive concerns.

In any case I'm a big Kerry supporter and very much wish Nader weren't running. Nonetheless, I think he has a rational reason for running and campaigning in swing states.

[Edited on Nov 01, 2004 by BadYeti]

big ups!!!

i was ready to jump in with a CALI VOTERS board but , frankly, a little to harvest-based right now for cohesion.
the point i am troubled with right now is that, i don't think my vote for kerry as a regiem change means anything in CALI... it's a lock.
so i was looking at my ballot and found i couldn't vote for nader if i wanted.
then i realize i don't know shit about DAVID COBB or LEONARD PELTIER!
i know change is needed just as much as i know change will come; but damn i wish my vote really COUNTED!!!!!