Tuesday, March 07, 2006
"Thanks a lot, Nader voters! Thanks a lot!"That was Al Franken this morning, right after noting that South Dakota had enacted legislation that effectively banned all abortions. Expect to hear more of that sort of thing as the issue makes its way to the Supreme Court. Since Nader had no chance whatsoever of winning the presidency, the only reason for voting for Nader in 2000 was to chasten the Democratic party and the electorate as a whole. Well, it worked. And here we are. Nader voters* must be pleased that people are taking notice, in part, because women will now suffer under anti-abortion legislation. Making life more miserable for (mostly disadvantaged) people in the hope that voters will endorse a progressive agenda is a political strategy this blog totally rejects. * - at the very least, those Nader voters in Florida.
posted by Quiddity at 3/07/2006 09:25:00 AM
21 comments
I thing those who voted for Nader in 2000 know now that yes, VIrginia, there really is a greater of the two evils, and it actually matters which one of them wins.
I am a Nader voter. I voted for him in both of the last two elections, and I am still proud of those votes. While you may have voted for the lesser of two evils, I voted my conscience. Nader was clearly the only anti-war candidate. I do not delight in anyone's misery and I am not to blame for laws passed in South Dakota. If you democrats would nominate a candidate that's not ashamed of his liberal views, I will probably vote for him or her. Until then, you vote as you wish and I'll continue to vote my conscience.
I didnt vote for Gore because I didnt want him to be president. My vote for Nader had nothing to do with punishing the Democrats. I simply liked Nader as a candidate. Still do. Why would I even bother going to the polls if my only choices are ones that I dont even consider acceptable?
jobsanger, fuck you. You are to blame for South Dakota, as it was Bush who appointed Sam Alito to the USSC, not Gore. You're so egotistical that you don't give a shit for women resorting to coat hangers as long as you can feel oh so ideologically pure. Get over yourself, asshole.
cc mcgoon, so, you wanted Bush to be President then. Nader had no chance, and you had to know that, still you chose not to make a difference and allowed the far greater of the two evils to be President. Hey dickhead, I think Jesus H. Fucking Christ is acceptable, but know what? Writing Him in on a ballot is just a moronic act of self-indulgence, just like voting for Nader was.
And no, I'm not here to persuade you two wankers to do anything different in the future. You're obviously so detached from reality that no amount of kicking in the ass would change your minds, or at least what passes for them.
Dear "anonymous" -----Your anger should be at your party that can't seem to field a candidate with real beliefs[of any kind] that he is willing to vigorously defend and promote. I don't need ideological purity, just a candidate who doesn't have to read the polls to know what he believes. By the way, what does your party believe in. The american people don't know right now. Until they do know, democrats will keep losing elections. Blame me if you want, but look in the mirror to see the problem.
I didnt vote for Bush. Republican voters did. Blame them. And what is it that makes the Dems think that if Nader hadnt run, his voters would have voted for Gore? Just because we have liberal views doesnt mean that our votes are owned by the Democratic party. There have always been third parties that have their loyal voters. They shouldnt be blamed for a major party's failure to win an election.
"jobsanger", my party believes in a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. My party believes in saving Social Security. My party believes in having a federal government that can respond to disasters instead of allowing thousands to remain behind in a flooded major city.
What the fuck does your party believe in, besides looking down it's nose at politics? Strangely enough, one poll does matter, namely the one on Election Day. I can't help but note how you and your party only acted as the spoiler in 2000 and 2004. I'm sure it gave you a nice warm feeling until the piss running down your legs started getting cold.
They shouldnt be blamed for a major party's failure to win an election.
PLease, get real. Nader himself said he was looking forward to the failure of the Democratic Party so a new, more leftist party could rise up. Too bad that in the process that lead to us getting stuck with a President who lied us into war in Iraq. Gee, maybe that will turn out to be a good thing in the long run, along with abortion being made illegal thanks to a reactionary Supreme Court. Gee, maybe when the Patriot Act allows for Total Invasion of our Privacy, we can hope for better days ahead! Sheesh, you guys are so damn naive that you don't even realize you're helping empower everything you say you're against.
You say your party believes in choice and saving social security, but there are prominent democrats who oppose both. Everybody believes the federal government should do better with disasters. Bush is just too incompetant to get it done. I am an Independent, therefore I have no party. I'm sorry you're reduced to name-calling. Except for this one topic, I believe you and I would find ourselves agreeing on many things.
jobsanger, if you can't see the difference between what a political party stands for and does, versus what some individual members of that party say and do, I can't help you. Democrats did pretty much save Social Security from Bush's proposals. Democrats would not have ever put someone like Samuel Alito on the Supreme court either. And Bill Clinton cared enough about FEMA to appoint competent people and pay attention to how good a job it was doing.
I'm pissed off at you and Naderites in general because after six fucking years of Bush, you all still seem to think that it's hunky-dory to say "a pox on both their houses", while your country is getting screwed by corrupt cronyism courtesy of the Republican Party, as well as them helping to make the country a safer place for theocratic rule in states like South Dakota. I'm sure we can find lots to agree on, but when it comes down to it, it's how you vote that matters.
I have no doubt that Kerry would have chosen someone much more suitable than Samuel Alito. But Nader cant be blamed for the Dems 2004 loss. If all of us who voted for Nader had instead given Kerry our votes,he still would have lost. This makes me think that Kerry simply ran a poor campaign.
That's when the barbarians are invited in to clean house.
Just like the Roman empire... history does repeat itself, doesn't it?
The angry anonymous poster above illustrates to me a problem with democratic party coalition building and get-out-the-vote efforts.
Those Nader voters from 2000 didn't lose the 2004 election. And I would argue they would have been long forgotten under a Gore presidency if not for Republican trickery in Florida, from the local party up to Supreme court intervention.
But lets compare the parties. Republicans long embraced their right wing fringe as a source of votes and dollars in exchange mostly for lipservice. Even under Bush, compare what multinations and millionaires get versus what social conservatives and civil rights rollback activists get.
Then look at (many) vocal democrats who demonize those democrats out to the left of them, or who are interested in father left parties. Instead of coopting their energy for a few token gestures, like republicans would do, people like the above poster blame every democratic loss and failure on those to their left. Not those running the party, shaping the message, or setting the agenda.
And I have to wonder,how long will every setback and failure be dumped on elderly voters in Florida who couldn't line up their butterfly ballots?
About 50 million people voted for Bush; the same number for Gore. 2.5 million of us voted for the Green Party.
So why do you give us well-meaning people of conscience grief? How about the 50M who voted for Chimp?
Exactly. First of all, blame the 50+M people who voted for Bush in the first place in 2000. What were they thinking? Did they look at Bush's record at all? Did they listen to him try to think and speak at the same time?
Secondly, blame Gore for running a bad campaign. He should have had Clinton campaigning for him and if he had won his own home state he would have been president in 2000. After the eight years those guys had, Nader could have won 10% of the vote and Gore still should have won. Gore should have cleaned Chimp's clock.
And you know what? He did win. The Dems should have insisted on a complete recount of FLA but they caved in to the fascists in large part due to Benedict Arnold Lieberman.
Having said that it is hard to believe that after four of the worst years of any president and one that is lying, incompetent, illegitimate and illiterate Bush got millions more to vote for him.
Unbelievable! Now...let's sit back and watch America turn into Nazi Germany.
ripleybogle
So it's Nader's fault that the Democrats in Congress:
* Let Ashcroft become Attorney General--and then did the same with Gonzalez;
* Voted for tax cuts in 2001 and 2002;
* Supported the pro-war in Iraq resolution;
* Let Rogers, Owen and then Alito become lifetime appointed federal judges.
Yup, that Nader has a lot of power. What a guy!
I voted for Nader from CA in 2000. I would have done the same in Florida. Yes, I repent, but only to the extent that I now know the Democratic Party leaders in DC are even worse than any of us thoughy they were in 2000. They are, with singular exceptions, a bunch of pathetic weak-kneed cowards.
And the real irony is that Gore "losing" has finally freed him of his K Street and Marty Peretz advisors--and he may yet be the candidate we hoped he'd be for this nation in 2008.
Our political system is run like the big corporations that fund it. They pick 2 candidates based on their fund-raising ability and market them to us like dish soap. Then they tell us we really have a choice. The only choice we have is to not buy the product. If we are roped into buying a product because it's less awful than another product or because we think its the absolutely best possible product it doesn't make any difference at all - we still bought it and the game goes on.
I voted for Kerry with my nose held, because I thought Nader was not doing anything helpful for the left or the country and that left only 2 choices on my ballot.
However, I am not going that way again. A candidate whose only positive attribute is that they are less terrible than the Republican is not a candidate who can win, nor should he/she win. For 2006 and 2008, I have a simple test: You are for pulling out of Iraq ASAP and for impeaching Bush & Cheney for their obvious and admitted crimes, or you ain't gettin' my vote. Simple as that.
We need an opposition party, not a bunch of unprincipled wimps. If we can't have that, then we may need to reread the Declaration of Independence.
Thank's a lot, Dems, for throwing Nader out of the debate when he had a legitimate ticket and looking like a lot of goons! You showed Bush a great example. Thanks a lot, Dems, for being indistinguishable from the GOP on many issues and moving the center to the right of most of the industrialized world. Thanks a lot, Dems, for giving your left wing the bird again and again. Thanks, Hillary, for voting for the Iraq war when 99.9 of your constituents were writing you letters opposing it. Thanks a lot, Gore, for voting to confirm Clarence Thomas, for running on a ticket with Lieberman, and for going on Letterman and dissing the civil service -- one of your most loyal constituents. I for one am tired of being triangulated and shat on by so-called pragmatist, but really pandering Democrats (who was it that got us into the Vietnam war for the sole purpose of getting themselves re-elected?) and can't even be bothered to campaign in my neighborhood. I won't be bullied by people who blame Nader for their own self-prostitution to the lobbyists and their own moral and intellectual weakness.
It's none of your goddam business who I vote for -- it is your business to try and get my vote. You have written me off, why should I care about you?
Shorter Naderites above: I want it all, or nothing at all. By that logic you should in fact have written in Jesus, because surely Nader wasn't the ideal candidate. Do you actually know what Nader's positions on civil rights and poverty and getting his "program" implemented were?
Re Alito, and the rest: do you not realize who's in power, and what is achievable by the minority under the current admin? How many Pyrrhic victories do you demand before you'll grudgingly vote to support the Kennedys and Durbins and Obamas in govt, if there are any left at that point?
And those clinging to the Dems are indistinguishable from Reps claim: You're just like die-hard war supporters, refusing to let reality get in the way of your opinions. Congratulations on getting so far to the left that you've wound up on the right.
I do want someone to represent my views and my interests and what I believe is the public good, is that a crime in this democracy?
As a matter of fact I voted for Gore and Kerry in the last two elections. But I resent very much that neither of them campaigned in my state or even sent a surrogate. I regard the fact that Bush was allowed to steal the elections as a direct result of their idiotic, lazy pandering.
Wahh Wahh Wahh... It's all Nader's fault. Maybe it's time to stop alienating your allies and concede the good points he makes. Then you can begin to attract his voters. Name-calling and subjective blame assignment do not a compelling argument make. In fact it makes you sound a bit like the "Thruthiness" folk and their subjective objectivity. I did vote for Nader in 2000 (in California, where it truly was a protest vote), but not 2004. Once again, it looks like folks find it easier to scapegoat a relatively powerless minority for the failures of the majority. Sigh...
|
