One, err... several reasons to vote nader.
November 2, 2000 12:37 PM   Subscribe

One, err... several reasons to vote nader. more inside.
posted by tiaka (17 comments total)
 
Gore isn't the lesser of the two evils, he's there, if not greater. Why should the Gore camp decide what's best for the country, they haven't done anything. Listen to Nader rally on today, he goes in further. And again, Vote Nader.
posted by tiaka at 12:39 PM on November 2, 2000


this is driving me crazy! how can nader champion such worthy causes and then sell them all out and risk damaging them like this? that fact that his candidacy is giving gwb an edge is some super close state races disgusts me.

how can people that consider themselves green not realize the damage that gwb will do to women's rights, worker's rights, environmental protection, etc etc etc?

in theory i guess i can understand a nader vote...but in practice and looking at the big picture most issues that greens care about will be damaged by the victory the nader may be be handing to gwb on a silver platter.

posted by saralovering at 1:34 PM on November 2, 2000


I especially love the "ripping" Nader gives Clinton/Gore about Universal Health Care, claiming it was a burgeoning bureaucracy, and doomed to failure. Then in his "statement about UHC", Nader claims that he would "get it done" by implementing, gosh, a huge government program.

Pfft.

Hurry up, Nov 7th!
posted by ethmar at 1:54 PM on November 2, 2000


how can people that consider themselves green not realize the damage that gwb will do to women's rights, worker's rights, environmental protection, etc etc etc?

It's not certain that Bush will do all the things people are afraid he'll do, or that he'll even be ABLE to do them. It's not certain that keeping him out of office would protect the causes you mention from being damaged. It is pretty close to certain that putting Gore in office will not make things any better than they currently are.

in theory i guess i can understand a nader vote...but in practice and looking at the big picture most issues that greens care about will be damaged by the victory the nader may be be handing to gwb on a silver platter.

If Gore loses to Bush it's his own damn fault. He's had the chance to present a compelling alternative, and all he's come up with is an uninspiring bunch of blather that tells us nothing we don't already know.

There aren't all that many Greens yet, certainly not enough to be able to swing an election. The only reason Nader is able to get as many supporters as he has is that Gore has little to offer beyond "I'm not as bad as Bush".

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:56 PM on November 2, 2000


Will someone name me 1 thing besides the family leave act that Gore/Clinton have done for

women's rights, worker's rights, environmental protection

In fact, Clinton/Gore have done more to weaken these rights that their Republican predecessors, no?

posted by s10pen at 1:59 PM on November 2, 2000


It's not certain that Bush will do all the things people are afraid he'll do, or that he'll even be ABLE to do them.

If Bush wins, I think the coattail effect is likely to keep the House and Senate in Republican hands. If this country has one party in control of the executive and legislative branches, what's going to stop Bush from carrying out his whole agenda?
posted by rcade at 2:11 PM on November 2, 2000


Will someone name me 1 thing besides the family leave act that Gore/Clinton have done for women's rights ...

For starters, Clinton appointed pro-choice Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
posted by rcade at 2:15 PM on November 2, 2000


And if Nader and the Greens get their 5% at the expense of a Gore loss, then in '04 they get Federal funds so they can even more effectively split the Democratic party, and give four more years to the Republicans even after GWB's probably disastrous first term.

And then? The Democrats can't renounce the middle - that's where the votes are! - so Nader can't pull them left. And even if he could build a coalition on the left large enough to defeat the Republicans, how long will that take? Not four years - many more. It took the original Republicans two elections to defeat the Democrats - and they had slavery as a wedge issue and Lincoln as a candidate!

Grow up - this isn't a game. This is whether you and your children will live in a religious oligarchy or a liberal democracy. Vote Gore.
posted by nicwolff at 2:18 PM on November 2, 2000


Grow up - this isn't a game. This is whether you and your children will live in a religious oligarchy or a liberal democracy. Vote Gore.

That doesn't make sense.

Q. Why are the Democrats moving further and further to the right?

A. Because they do not have any competition from the Left

Even if you are only a little left, you have an interest in there being a strong left wing.

As has been noted elsewhere even conservatives 30 years ago like President Nixon were less right wing than liberals like Clinton and Gore today. This is a function of the political landscape, not personalities. In the process you got social reforms, welfare and environmental protections which, sadly, today look very progressive. Clinton/Gore not only failed to defend them but have actively eroded or dismantled them while in office. Look at Gore's good work on welfare "reform".

In recent decades the Left has been truly pathetic. The worker's movement has stagnated and progressive causes have been fragmented into a disunited rabble. During that time Liberal / Social Democratic parties like the Democrats and the various "new" Labor Parties have felt free to jettison their social agendas and move dramatically to the Right.

The Left needs to rebuild itself and embrace goals that it can believe in again. This is not as hard as it was 20 years ago when economic rationalism and the New Right agenda was still young. But the Right is smarter, more organized, more articulate and harder working. Of course they are also much better funded too. The Left, meanwhile, is lazy, disunited and lacking in self-confidence.

So if you call yourself "progressive", help build a progressive alternative and stop being so damned negative. The alternative is just to sit on your ass and watch Clever Al and the Dems move further and further to the Right.

posted by lagado at 11:08 PM on November 2, 2000




How to beat Bush while still helping the Green party get its 5%: If you live in a state that's gonna go for Bush anyway, vote for Nader. If you live in a swing state, vote for Gore. If you vote for Nader in a swing state, Bush will win.

It's not a republican vs democrat vs independent thing. Bush is not qualified to be in the whitehouse. He's only been governor of Texas for less than one term, and before that he was the figurehead owner of a baseball team. Everything Bush has, has been given to him. He's the proverbial silver spoon, and has never had to work hard a day in his life.

Both Gore and Nader have worked hard to get where they are. They each have their successes, failures and compromises. Gore compromises more than Nader.

Bush's entourage is trying to paint Dubya as a man dramatically different from who the real guy is. If you vote for Bush, you are voting for his entourage, and the real people behind him. The people who are pushing to get him in there. You won't have a president in Dubya. All we'll get is a puppet, and we won't know who's pulling the strings.

At least with Gore, we know we'll get someone who is such an egomaniac he won't let other people use him completely. He compromises too much perhaps, but unlike Dubya, Gore actually uses his brain.

IF Nader could win, I for one would welcome that, but he can't.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:39 AM on November 3, 2000


I must admit I am very happy to be living in a state (Maryland) which will certainly go very Gore. I can vote for Nader and not worry about this, because I really don't know what I would do if I lived in a swing state. I can see the merit in both sides of this argument. Over all, I would say that Bush is so wholly unqualified and incapable of being president that I would have to vote for Gore. I think that the things that Bush would screw up if elected are not as simple as appointing bad people to the Supreme Court, or as minor as passing out at a state dinner in Japan. I have to believe that he would find new and exciting ways to damage and embarrass our nation that people cannot even conceive of before they actually happen. I admit I would prefer four years of stagnation to fours years of downward spiral.
posted by donkeymon at 10:58 AM on November 3, 2000


Oh give me a break already. One might as well start yammering that a vote for Nader is a vote for Gore, since it takes away votes Bush might have gotten, and complain that Nader supporters are helping Gore get elected.

What nonsense. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, and is equivalent to zero votes for Gore and zero votes for Bush. I'm getting really sick of this endless, droning assertion that voting for Nader implicitly lends support to Bush. It only lends support in that it fails to support either major candidate. Claiming that voting for Nader supports Bush makes just as much sense as claiming that I'm supporting Nike by buying Doc Martens, because I'm not helping Adidas take over Nike's market share.

The assumption that all Nader supporters would automatically vote Gore if Nader weren't in the race is getting just a bit offensive. What gives the Gore campaign such a sense of entitlement? Who promised that all voters would vote for Republicans or Democrats? If the Democrats suck, who are they to think they deserve our votes? If Gore can't even convince all the Democrats to vote for him, what on earth makes him think he'd be able to convince Congress to work with him or the country to support him if he got into office?

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:08 PM on November 3, 2000


I refuse to accept the preposterous hypothesis that I am voting for Bush via Nader proxy. This assumes I would’ve orginally voted for Gore, and I never had that intention. Nor did the tens of thousands college kids supporting need for change in our rotten, conservative, unresponsive political system.

I refuse to support politicians whom are little else than corporate tools, whose rhetoric differs as little as their stance on issues. Neither candidate has spoken once on two of my top issues (corporate control over all aspects of American life, universal healthcare) and hold the opposite opinion on my third (cutting the military budget by at least half).

How could I ever vote for a politician whom does not represent me? Imagine the gall it takes asking me to.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 1:50 PM on November 3, 2000


Awesome, Mars! You rock.
posted by daveadams at 1:56 PM on November 3, 2000


Well said Mars.
posted by thirteen at 2:16 PM on November 3, 2000


I urge all Democrats to vote Democrat
posted by lagado at 7:51 PM on November 3, 2000


« Older this info   |   AIPAC Hacked, Credit Card numbers exposed. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments