Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


DontvoteRalph.net
June 23, 2004 11:17 PM   Subscribe

DontvoteRalph.net "Look at just a few of those who supported Nader in 2000, but see that this year is crucially different: Noam Chomsky, Ben Cohen, Peter Coyote, Phil Donahue, Ronnie Dugger, Jim Hightower, Robert McChesney, Michael Moore, and Bonnie Raitt. In fact, can you think of a prominent supporter from 2000 who supports him in 2004? Are we all members of Nader’s “liberal inteligentsia”? Or is the Bush presidency simply such a disaster that we realize there is only one responsible action for real progressives? Despite Mr. Nader’s inevitable disagreement, we don’t think everyone is out of step but Ralph." | So who is supporting Nader? Some think its the GOP.
posted by skallas (41 comments total)

 
On NPR Even Ralph is suggesting in swing states to vote Dem..
So I don't see the controversy here, Just saying I think this is a moot point right now....
Nader: Go to My Rallies, But Vote for Kerry

posted by Elim at 11:21 PM on June 23, 2004


That's my other brother Peter.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:26 PM on June 23, 2004


Which Nader are we talking about. The one who said this:

In a swing state whose crucial voters are often hyped as potentially deciding the 2004 election, when asked by a reporter, "Aren't you concerned about taking votes away from Kerry?" Nader nonchalantly quipped: "I'm worried about Kerry taking votes away from me."


The Green Party's David Cobb is trying to win the nomination by, among other things, promising not to throw the election to Bush with smart campaigning, something Nader isn't doing.
posted by skallas at 11:27 PM on June 23, 2004


Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Seriously, the Two Party System is fascinating in that it creates a high level of political homogenity and an bitter animosity, both at the same time.
posted by spazzm at 11:49 PM on June 23, 2004


Ralph Nader being interviewed by none other than Pat Buchanan (good read, really).
posted by jmd82 at 11:59 PM on June 23, 2004


RN: I believe in choice. I don’t think government should tell women to have children or not to have children. I am also against feticide. If doctors think it is a fetus, that should be banned. It is a medical decision.

!!!
posted by interrobang at 12:15 AM on June 24, 2004


(...and, [great link], jmd82.)
posted by interrobang at 12:20 AM on June 24, 2004


Pat Buchanan really hates bush and the Iraq war, in any event.
posted by delmoi at 2:56 AM on June 24, 2004


Seriously, the Two Party System is fascinating in that it creates a high level of political homogeneity and an bitter animosity, both at the same time.

I don't think the level of animosity was ever as high as it is now. Bush and the neo-cons really grate on liberals for some reason. I think most of the 'animosity' this cycle isn't caused by the two party system, but by abject hatred for bush.

Interestingly, Republicans seemed to hate Clinton about as passionately as liberals hate bush now, so maybe bush is just trying to even things out?
posted by delmoi at 2:59 AM on June 24, 2004


"I don't think the level of animosity was ever as high as it is now"


really? well, just off the top of my head:

the Burr-Hamilton duel (talk about tv debates and CNN's "Crossfire")

the Civil War

TR's Bull Moose

"Franklin Delano Rosenfeld"

"Defend America First"

Truman's loyalty oaths

kids in Texas school cheering after JFK's assassination, Confederate flags proudly flying in the South the night after the murder (as CunningLinguist reminded us recently)

"Lee H-is-for-Hero Oswald"

"LBJ-LBJ-how-many-kids-did-you-kill-today"

Chicago 1968

"I am not a crook"

Carter and Iran -- remember the GOP's campaign?

"Who killed Vince Foster?"

the Clinton impeachment lynch mob



just off the top of my head, I'm sure other users will add many more if needed


posted by matteo at 3:18 AM on June 24, 2004


delmoi: Exactly - the 'hate Bush' or 'hate Clinton' mindset is quite unique to the two-party state. When there's only one (real) opponent all negative emotions are focused on him, creating a completely polarized debate. I think this can be seen in many attitudes of two-party states (not only USA, but UK and others as well): "you're either with us, or against us", fighting for "good" against "evildoers". Any political question can be reduced to two standpoints - no more, no less.

It's likely that this sort of thing is not conductive to a constructive debate.
posted by spazzm at 3:24 AM on June 24, 2004


also on kos, damning evidence from AZ
posted by moonbird at 3:53 AM on June 24, 2004


i mean potentially...
posted by moonbird at 3:54 AM on June 24, 2004


Nader has every right to take votes away from Kerry. If anyone actually read amberglow's latest post (2-3 thread down), the point of the article is that Democrats are becoming more and more centrist, while Republicans are becoming more partisan. I sometimes hope Kerry loses, if only so that the party can regroup and regain the more liberal thinkers.

The Democrats need a swift kick in the pants so that they start fighting for themselves, instead of against the Republicans.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:41 AM on June 24, 2004


Hell, I'm a Republican and I'm supporting Nader specifically because I believe that a strong Nader candidacy is a threat to Kerry. Donated to his campaign and everything.
posted by DWRoelands at 5:32 AM on June 24, 2004


Donated to his campaign and everything.


Wow, that's vicious.
posted by Sijeka at 5:50 AM on June 24, 2004


It shows how scared many Repubs are about Bush's chances on his own.
posted by amberglow at 6:01 AM on June 24, 2004


Are Bill & Opus running this year?
posted by jonmc at 6:56 AM on June 24, 2004


interrobang channelling Nader: I don’t think government should tell women to have children or not to have children. I am also against feticide. If doctors think it is a fetus, that should be banned. It is a medical decision.

interrobang: !!!

lame. His point is that if the doctor thinks it is a fetus, it is a human being and therefore killing it is wrong. If it is still a zygote, or a potentiality, or whatever, then abortion is fine. Nader is merely taking a medical position, rather than a partisan one: life doesn't begin at conception, nor at birth. It begins when science says it does. Typically the agreed-upon outside-the-womb viability.

You mean Nader's not a knee-jerk banner waver? He actually thought for himself, did some research and formed his own opinion? Wow. Imagine that.
posted by ChasFile at 7:33 AM on June 24, 2004


the point of the article is that Democrats are becoming more and more centrist, while Republicans are becoming more partisan

Have you thought about the possibility that it's the voters who shifted and the parties who followed? If that's the case, pulling the Democrats back leftward won't get you anything but more Republicans.



On preview: Chasfile, "science" doesn't say anything about when "life begins." Sperm and eggs start out alive. Zygotes are alive. Science can tell you when it's viable, true, but attaching moral conclusions to that is ascientific.
posted by callmejay at 7:52 AM on June 24, 2004


So who is supporting Nader? Some think its the GOP.

It would be incompetence and stupidity of the highest order if the GOP did *NOT* support Nader.

There is no "morality" to it, it is just good politics. I hope that somewhere along the way the Dem's have helped Perot and Buchanan. It's the smart thing to do.

The only problem is that Nader is too fucking stupid to realize he is being used. And that goes double for Nader's blind loyalists. Ego trumps reasons more than a few times.

This has come up more than a few times on the blue. People either understand how voting Nader helps insure putting Bush back in office, or they don't. I think most everyone has given up trying to explain it.

It has to do with political maturity, and being able to reason out the consequence of your actions.

Put another way, how bad would Bush's America have to become before a typical Green would stop making a symbolic gesture at the poll, and instead actively work to make real, immediate, tangible change?

For people who would rather vote Nader, and in the process, help insure the candidate LEAST SIMILAR to their ideals takes office, and that they don't care, well, there's not much to say.

And for those Greens who say there is no difference between dems and repubs, don't bother responding. I "comprehend" the idea of voting your conscience even if doing so elects the much worse of two poor choices. But I far from understand it and vehemently disagree with it. I realize you are a "lost cause" so to speak regarding switching your vote.

But for those Greens that are able to rationally examine their choices, yes, it may be we have two poor choices in the major parties. However, one of those choices is much, much worse than the other. One of those choices is at least somewhat similar to some of your ideals, where the other is openly hostile to your ideals.

If you live in a closely contested state, I do not see how it would be a betrayal of your values or somehow diminish what you are trying to accomplish if you were to help elect the person that was at least not openly hostile to your ideology and viewpoint.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:02 AM on June 24, 2004


Oh thanks Ynoxas for being the voice of Democratic idiocy. Let me see if I can put this simply: the Democrats do not automatically deserve my vote; they have to earn it by, I don't know, taking up positions I support. If the party paid a tenth as much attention to their liberal base as the Repubs pay to the nutsos, they wouldn't have this problem. But instead they throw hissyfits like yours—the worst way to woo 2000's Nader voters back.

Besides, even if you browbeat people into supporting your candidate, what you get is a half-hearted voter who hauls her ass to the polls and pulls the lever but does no more: she won't volunteer for the campaign, she won't try to convince her friends and family, she will do nothing but the minumum. In fact, there are a lot of people, hardcore Dems among them, who are already taking this attitude towards Kerry, especially after he skipped the women's march earlier this year.

N.B. This post is not a promise to vote for any particular person in 2004.
posted by dame at 9:12 AM on June 24, 2004


dame has it right on, except that dragging your apathetic ass to the polls and pulling the lever is not the minimum you can do.

Ask the 60% of the US population that doesn't even bother to do that much.
posted by chicobangs at 9:22 AM on June 24, 2004


He actually thought for himself, did some research and formed his own opinion?

a) It doesn't show RN actually did any research. If he had, maybe he would have stated a medical consensus on when the baby becomes a fetus? Which there is not. You have pro-life doctors and pro-choice doctors and can make a valid scientific argument from either vantage point.
b) right after that:
"PB: Between the woman and her doctor—
RN: And whoever else, family, clergy."
RN actually interrupted Pat's saying the choice is between a woman and her doctor to add more characters to the story. I find that interesting.
posted by jmd82 at 9:22 AM on June 24, 2004


yeah, fuck that GOP asshole Nader.

Cobb/Camejo in 2004!

It would be incompetence and stupidity of the highest order if the GOP did *NOT* support Nader. There is no "morality" to it, it is just good politics.

har. you made me laugh. another GOP example of "good politics".

i suppose we might have a different definition of the word "good." eh.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:33 AM on June 24, 2004


Cobb/Camejo in 2004!

They'll be nominated at the Green Party convention, to be held in an abandoned Fotomat booth in Perth Amboy. Conventioneers make your reservations now, and bring food please.
posted by jonmc at 9:37 AM on June 24, 2004


I am voting for Nader in 2004, or I might go Libertarian like I did in 1996. I live in a state where the outcome is pre-decided. Neither Bush or Kerry offers anything interesting or forward-thinking, so I will definitely go Green or Libertarian this year.
posted by chaz at 10:20 AM on June 24, 2004


I finally just gave up on the Nader vs. Democrats thing the other day when Nader deigned to "offer his advice" to Kerry on picking Edwards as his Vice President. (In other news, Nader recommends that the sun rise in the East tomorrow... tune in tomorrow to gauge Nader's god-like powers!)

I cringe anytime I hear/read attacks from Democrats on Nader voters that contain the exact level of sincerety and desire to change as a drunken husband slapping his wife, but I'm amazed at how every time I try to, for the sake of civility, rationalize Nader, he goes out of his way to just be a complete and utter douchebag.

It's honestly the first time character has superceded issues with a candidate for me. I can never vote for Ralph Nader because he is, after four years of hard work, the most self-righteous, intolerant, and condescending asshole in current-day politics.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:21 AM on June 24, 2004


Being in texas, I will be voting for myself. or maybe my dog!
posted by bob sarabia at 11:23 AM on June 24, 2004


they have to earn it by, I don't know, taking up positions I support

This year, I'm encouraging all my Naderite friends to write their own names on the ballot. That way they can be sure they're voting for a candidate who's really earned their support while still having the same chance of actually holding office that Nader has. That's twice! Twice! the idealism, with no loss of influence! How can they lose?
posted by octobersurprise at 11:59 AM on June 24, 2004


Have you thought about the possibility that it's the voters who shifted and the parties who followed? If that's the case, pulling the Democrats back leftward won't get you anything but more Republicans.

callmejay, if you honestly believed that, then the Parties don't stand for values and beliefs, but simply whatever the public tells them to believe. If that's the case, I'll never be affiliated to any party, since they're more inclined to vote for the majority that retain any principles.

I don't consider it ethical, or principled, to solely vote your pocket or any single-issue. Politics (IMHO), like relationships, are about holding certain ideals and being flexible to compromise when necessary. I won't vote for Kerry just because I don't want Bush. That's not good enough. I want to vote for someone who will represent ME. Kerry's too much of a political pussy. I'd rather see the fallout over the next four years with W (the second term) than let the Democrats believe that they won my vote. Values and ideals mean something to me.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:38 PM on June 24, 2004


sorry. i thought Cobb picked Camejo (which would have been extremely unlikely) as his running mate.

it's actually Nader/Camejo. shit. i sure hope the Greens don't pick Nader. that would be kinda embarrassing.

so Brown, Cobb, or Nader? it's good to know that my vote makes zero difference. takes the pressure off.

They'll be nominated at the Green Party convention, to be held in an abandoned Fotomat booth in Perth Amboy.

nah, it's in Milwaukee and it started yesterday. i thought about an fpp for about 3 seconds, then decided wisely.

on preview: i wouldn't vote for myself b/c: a) it's lame; b) i don't want the job (well, i might take it if offered, but i don't want to be elected); c) i'm not qualified enough

oh shit. i just found out about the Light Party. woohoo!

jmd82, thanks for the Buchanan interview. i've read about it b4, but i love the Hank Brown anecdote about the WTO legislation, and am truly depressed that no one picked up the story back then.

(not to invoke the unnameable ...) "son, sit down. we don't read most of the bills."

on umpteenth preview: all the other parties. (i swear i don't know where that blank space came from)

on umpteenth preview: i can't believe it, but i pretty much agree with BlueTrain. unfortunately, i think my sheer terror at the apocalypse GWB may invoke in the next four years will outweigh by ideological sticking points. that's not self-interest, unless you think saving the world is self-interested.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:21 PM on June 24, 2004


Dame: I hardly think that was a hissy-fit, although I've thrown them in other threads on this topic.

Let me try to explain this from another angle.

I am not (necessarily) pro-Kerry. I am anti-Bush. I would think virtually all Greens could at the very least empathize with that.

I want someone besides Bush to be president next term. That pretty much means it will be Kerry, or else Bush will remain. Note Nader is not mentioned as a possible, because it is, quite literally, impossible. I am not speaking to the *MERITS* of Nader winning, merely the plausibility. (Note that all Greens know this).

The most effective way to get someone besides Bush to be president next term would be to have people who would otherwise vote for a 3rd party candidate that has no legitimate chance (Nader) to vote for Kerry, since Kerry, while I will admit is NOT A GREEN CANDIDATE, is still instantly recognizable as being more compatible with the desires of most Greens than Bush.

So, the Greens would appear they have a dilemma. Do they vote their conscience, which they know is basically symbolic, or do they vote to actually affect change, and to help the candidate that is at least not openly hostile to their positions gain office?

Except, most Greens do not see it as a dilemma. They say the dems don't "deserve" their vote, so as retribution they will not help get rid of Bush.

How about a compromise?

How about Greens each recruit one Bush voter to vote Green as well. Mr. Nader will gain more votes, and Bush's total will be adjusted to reflect the dems not attaining your Green vote.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, unless you convert a repub. How's that?

mrgrimm: i merely mean that it would be "effective" or "efficient" politics. I'm avoiding any moral judgement on it. Would I prefer the GOP not assist Nader? Of course (see above). Would it be borderline negligent for the GOP to NOT assist Nader? Yes (see above).
posted by Ynoxas at 1:37 PM on June 24, 2004


Ynoxas, did you read the second paragraph of what I wrote? You know where I pointed out how crap your technique is for someone who supposedly just wants to get rid of Bush.
posted by dame at 3:06 PM on June 24, 2004


>Would I prefer the GOP not assist Nader? Of course

Well, its expected that the dirty GOoPers would use Nader, the question is why is Nader allowing himself to be used? He should be able to say no, but it seems to me he's so off the deep end this year that taking their money and support is no big deal. He even rationalizes it about being able to 'take more votes from Bush than from Kerry' which is pretty disingenuous when you consider how Kerry's number fall when Nader is added as a third option in just about every poll.

Hey, I fully understand that the Kerry campaign needs to win a percentage of these people back but that isn't an excuse to give the GOP what it wants, namely a progressive patsy who can help them win a few key states.

I don't think he or his supporters care if Bush wins again, in fact I've met some who would relish more Bush as "punishment." Not good.
posted by skallas at 3:40 PM on June 24, 2004


Dame, about the second paragraph of your post, which you recently asked Ynoxas to re-read:

You wrote the "half-hearted voter who hauls her ass to the polls and pulls the lever but does no more: she won't volunteer for the campaign, she won't try to convince her friends and family, she will do nothing but the minumum."

Don't you see this "minimum" is all people like Ynoxas is asking for? This "minimum" means the Bush administration is denied the power to drag this country further down the path of destruction. This "minimum" means the list of abominable Bush actions comes to an end.

And if you were trying to say Kerry is bound to lose because people will be insufficiently motivated to actively campaign for him, you're overstating the effects of retail, door-to-door politics. On the other hand, here's a measure of the voracious support ABBAs (Anyone But Bush Agents) and others have been lending to Kerry's campaign.
posted by hhc5 at 6:32 PM on June 24, 2004


Bush Campaign Helping Nader in Oregon
posted by homunculus at 7:39 PM on June 24, 2004


A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, unless you convert a repub. How's that?

I'm a conservative and voted for Bush last time but I hate the man now and think he's lost vision of conservative policies I hold. I also won't vote Democrat because I disagree with them on virtually every position. Hence, I think I will be voting Green this time around.
posted by jmd82 at 10:11 PM on June 24, 2004


Vote for Kerry.
posted by johnb at 11:36 PM on June 24, 2004


Remember: You don't vote to express your political opinion, you vote to see how good you are at picking the winning candidate.
posted by spazzm at 1:09 AM on June 25, 2004


>I will be voting Green this time around.

jmd82, that means you're voting for Cobb not Nader. Even the Greens don't want him.
posted by skallas at 1:52 AM on June 25, 2004


« Older Remembering the amazingly mature poetry of Mattie ...   |   Everyone's favorite unidentifi... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments