Nader-logic: In a Pittsburg Post-Gazette report, Democrats
push hard to neutralize Nader, we read the following remarks by Ralph Nader:
"Anybody-but-Bush liberals should realize that their brand of support for [Democratic presidential challenger] John Kerry is only serving to make the Massachusetts senator into a weaker candidate. While Kerry is being pulled by the commercial interests who fund his campaign, progressives are giving him their vote for free -- making no demands on him whatsoever.
"Thus, the only pull on Kerry is toward the interests of big business," Nader maintained. "This reduces Kerry to the status of a candidate that is standing for corporate interests before the interests of the people."
Nader asserts:
| Kerry is being pulled by the commercial interests | Somewhat true |
| Progressives are making no demands on him | Essentially true |
Therefore:
Kerry is "reduced to" a candidate for corporate interests before the interests of the people | Not true. |
Sure, Kerry may well be pulled towards commercial interests, but that doesn't mean that he is 100% aligned with those interests, but Nader wants you to think so. Nader is preaching purity in politics - and selectively as well. When Nader gets support from right-wingers, he says they won't influence him, but he doesn't grant that sort of integrity to Kerry. Nader is misleading the voters - something that Bush is doing as well (but in different areas of politics and policy). Bush and Nader are preaching to their own choirs.
posted by Quiddity at 9/19/2004 03:08:00 AM
Your conclusion is wrong. Nader's is right. But I'm still voting for Kerry for one reason: he's not Bush.
The "he's not Bush" logic is irrefutable. As an anti-war person, I have to hold my nose to vote for Kerry but I'll do it. For those that liked the Clinton economy, Kerry can probably deliver that.
Well, I guess my family and those of many of my friends are included in those "corporate interests" Kerry is being pulled by.
I voted for Nader in 2000 because I wanted my vote to stand for something. I have wanted my vote to stand for something every election year that I have been able to vote, starting all the way back to Shirley Chisholm and on through John Anderson.
Well, now I not only want my vote to stand for something, I want it to DO something, and that something is to get rid of the biggest threat to democracy in my country that I've ever seen. Nader can't understand that. Oh, well. When we get a parliamentary system, I'll allow myself the luxury of going back to my old voting patterns.
I concur with a few quibbles. Kerry long ago got pulled toward corporate interests, witness his lackluster performance in the Senate. However, Kerry is certainly a pro-big-government liberal by comparison to Bush and the proto-fascist crowd around him. We need to vote against Bush to preserve democracy, and any non-Bush vote that is not for John Kerry is essentially worthless whether we wish it to be that way or not.
