Reading today's Boondocks made me smile, seeing Aaron McGruder (through Huey, of course) look at the centrists with the same resigned annoyance I do, pointing out that blaming Nader, especially with the energy most Republicrats seem to, for Bush's presidency is scapegoating in its purest form put a warmth in my heart. I walked past the Nader for President tent across the street from Powell's on Friday, relieved and pleased to see people unafraid to think for themselves.
I had an argument with a friend of mine the other day, the owner of the espresso/print shop next door to the office complex where my day job is, in which he railed me for supporting Nader. He cited statistics of body counts in Iraq, followed by a count of Nader's popular votes, and said "if it weren't for those Nader voters, we wouldn't have dead soldiers in Iraq."
I lost patience with the argument right about that moment, electing to leave rather than point out the flaws in my friend's logic.
I've lost some of the vinegar that flowed freely in my veins leading up to the war in Iraq, I'll admit, but I'm still angry, and now, as it was for quite a while, my anger is less focused on the Junta and back on the people who enable people like them to exist. It has always (and continues) to vex me, the flow of propaganda from so-called liberals focused on the subjugation of progressive thought, not realizing that applying that focus is more the cause of the current political situation in this country than a reaction.
Granted, I predicted something like this would happen way back in the dizz-ay, but it doesn't make me enjoy it.
I'm really loving it, though, the way people tend to conveniently forget some things about elections--the fact that Nader got 3% of the popular vote, for instance, or the fifty thousand people whose votes were illegally not counted, or the polls at Black colleges which were mysteriously closed, or the police blockades at polls in Black neighborhoods who simply refused to let voters in, or the fact that Al Gore's campaign was easily one of the worst in Democratic history. I don't necessarily blame him--what can you really say during a campaign like that other than "do you REALLY want to vote for this Bush motherfucker? not only is he dumber than cow shit, but the people he would bring into the Administration would be some of the most fascistic cocksuckers the world has ever seen." And you can't even say that, really, especially if your own political record wasn't that much better.
I must admit, though, the turnabout over the past four years is so obvious I'm sure everyone out there has to be catching it. In 2000, progressives were lambasted as being idealistic and childish for embracing Nader because he represented change; in 2004, the centrists have resorted to childish namecalling and oversimplified logic based on ideals more than reality to embrace Kerry and simultaneously crucify Kucinich, Sharpton and Nader (and all who support them).
And really, what kind of change would Kerry represent? What kind of change could we expect from a man whose prime candidate for a running mate was, at least up until last week, a fucking Republican? I don't trust John Kerry. I like him; he's friendly and charismatic, but it's that manufactured charisma, one borne of opportunism as much as genuine patriotism. Truthfully, he reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton, which concerns me, because, as much as I liked Clinton, he was pretty fucking monstrous in some areas (areas that have nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky, I might add). I honestly don't trust John Kerry, because I think he wants to do exactly what Clinton did: take the corruption and fascism that Bush has brought out into the open and re-sugarcoat it so that people will accept it.
I know I'm most likely not voting for Kerry, and y'all can call me a fucking traitor all you want, but I'm going to vote for someone who stands for what I stand for. Whether or not it's going to be Nader remains to be seen, but it's damn sure not going to be "anyone but Bush," because falling in the sway of a smooth-talker in what appears to be a desperate situation is kind of how Hitler (and Bush) got into power.
And no, that's not equating Kerry with Hitler, that's simply a statement of skepticism and withholding of decision until I have done my own research.
Which, if you fucking centrist sheep really want to blame someone for Bush's presidency, you might want to start with the legions of eligible voters who didn't bother to do that in the first fucking place, instead of placing the blame on progressives.
I had an argument with a friend of mine the other day, the owner of the espresso/print shop next door to the office complex where my day job is, in which he railed me for supporting Nader. He cited statistics of body counts in Iraq, followed by a count of Nader's popular votes, and said "if it weren't for those Nader voters, we wouldn't have dead soldiers in Iraq."
I lost patience with the argument right about that moment, electing to leave rather than point out the flaws in my friend's logic.
I've lost some of the vinegar that flowed freely in my veins leading up to the war in Iraq, I'll admit, but I'm still angry, and now, as it was for quite a while, my anger is less focused on the Junta and back on the people who enable people like them to exist. It has always (and continues) to vex me, the flow of propaganda from so-called liberals focused on the subjugation of progressive thought, not realizing that applying that focus is more the cause of the current political situation in this country than a reaction.
Granted, I predicted something like this would happen way back in the dizz-ay, but it doesn't make me enjoy it.
I'm really loving it, though, the way people tend to conveniently forget some things about elections--the fact that Nader got 3% of the popular vote, for instance, or the fifty thousand people whose votes were illegally not counted, or the polls at Black colleges which were mysteriously closed, or the police blockades at polls in Black neighborhoods who simply refused to let voters in, or the fact that Al Gore's campaign was easily one of the worst in Democratic history. I don't necessarily blame him--what can you really say during a campaign like that other than "do you REALLY want to vote for this Bush motherfucker? not only is he dumber than cow shit, but the people he would bring into the Administration would be some of the most fascistic cocksuckers the world has ever seen." And you can't even say that, really, especially if your own political record wasn't that much better.
I must admit, though, the turnabout over the past four years is so obvious I'm sure everyone out there has to be catching it. In 2000, progressives were lambasted as being idealistic and childish for embracing Nader because he represented change; in 2004, the centrists have resorted to childish namecalling and oversimplified logic based on ideals more than reality to embrace Kerry and simultaneously crucify Kucinich, Sharpton and Nader (and all who support them).
And really, what kind of change would Kerry represent? What kind of change could we expect from a man whose prime candidate for a running mate was, at least up until last week, a fucking Republican? I don't trust John Kerry. I like him; he's friendly and charismatic, but it's that manufactured charisma, one borne of opportunism as much as genuine patriotism. Truthfully, he reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton, which concerns me, because, as much as I liked Clinton, he was pretty fucking monstrous in some areas (areas that have nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky, I might add). I honestly don't trust John Kerry, because I think he wants to do exactly what Clinton did: take the corruption and fascism that Bush has brought out into the open and re-sugarcoat it so that people will accept it.
I know I'm most likely not voting for Kerry, and y'all can call me a fucking traitor all you want, but I'm going to vote for someone who stands for what I stand for. Whether or not it's going to be Nader remains to be seen, but it's damn sure not going to be "anyone but Bush," because falling in the sway of a smooth-talker in what appears to be a desperate situation is kind of how Hitler (and Bush) got into power.
And no, that's not equating Kerry with Hitler, that's simply a statement of skepticism and withholding of decision until I have done my own research.
Which, if you fucking centrist sheep really want to blame someone for Bush's presidency, you might want to start with the legions of eligible voters who didn't bother to do that in the first fucking place, instead of placing the blame on progressives.