Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati2008 Is Not the Year for McKinney or Nader
We've all had the experience: you get off the interstate looking for food and are confronted with the choice of food-like commodities at the gas station's convenience store or food-like commodities at one of several fast food joints. It's not what you want to eat but, if you're hungry enough, you'll find the healthiest option among those available.
Politics is a lot like that. In my home town of Carrboro, NC, fresh, local, and organic food choices abound and it is easy enough to elect a progressive to local office. But nationally, we find our choices limited in much the same manner as our options along the interstate. Progressives who've studied our political system and history understand why you can sometimes elect a Dennis Kucinich to Congress and why he will never get far in a presidential race.
Over the past few elections, progressive voters have had the choice of supporting a single, high-profile third-party/independent candidate, Ralph Nader. This year, Nader is running as an independent and the Green Party ticket is headed by former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. While the choices are perhaps more tempting, supporting either of these candidates this year would be a big mistake for the Left.
Those on the Left understand that, in 2000, Nader did not cause Al Gore to lose to George Bush. Gore did that all on his own. Nonetheless, Nader and his Green Party strategists made a tactical error in 2000 when they brought the campaign to the close, battleground states in the waning days. The narrow victory that the Supreme Court handed to Bush in Florida casts Nader's 90,000+ votes there in bright relief. New Hampshire was another state where Nader's vote total was far in excess of the Bush margin of victory.
Nader also did a disservice to his supporters and to the nation by arguing that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Eight years later, we know that there was a big difference in such areas as war and peace, government regulation, civil liberties, court appointments, rule of law (and international law), environmental policy, and more. These are differences that have had serious consequence for the well-being of Americans and of people around the world.
Supporters of McKinney and Nader will correctly point out the many issues on which their candidates stand out: universal healthcare, a reduction in the military budget, an end to the death penalty, over-turning of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act, an end to the drug war and its handmaiden, the prison-industrial complex, full equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, etc.
But the fundamental reality is that neither McKinney nor Nader will come close to the 2% of the vote Nader received in the 2000 election. What they might achieve is winning enough votes in a key state to tip the race to the Republicans. That would be a tragic outcome.
In 2000, the economy looked strong and the nation was at peace. Progressives, unhappy with Bill Clinton's various turns to the right, were looking for an alternative. Few imagined Al Gore losing the race or the Supreme Court taking a close victory from the hands of Gore and handing it to Bush. Eight years later, we see how short-sighted that evaluation was. The risk is even greater this year. With major domestic and foreign policy challenges already facing the United States, we can not risk placing our government in the hands of a deregulator and saber-rattler like John McCain.
Barack Obama, though a moderate on most issues, is the only candidate who holds out the hope to move the country forward. Progress, however scant, on a host of issues, is desperately needed, as are regulatory agencies that will actually regulate and Supreme Court justices who will uphold civil liberties.
Supporting Nader or McKinney this year is a luxury we cannot afford. We live in a time when small differences are amplified and the differences between Obama and McCain (to say nothing of Palin) are significant. For the progressive voter there is no responsible alternative in 2008 other than wholeheartedly supporting Barack Obama.
541 Comments so far
Show AllSo what are we going to do so we are not having this same fruitless debate again in 2009, 10,11 and 12? We keep saying the same things, going back and forth between something that we cannot support and something that is not for real?
Joe
A long time Nader supporter, I've read worse. You'll find you win us over a tad more easily by demonstrating some respect, as Dan does here.
And as Obama did. I was struck by his response when informed that Nader was running again. Hillary said, "oh, NO, that's too bad." Obama said--I paraphrase--that that's his prerogative, and we gotta work that much harder to get those people on our side. That's the correct response--it's the responsible response. It wasn't us who "gave" Bush FL and NH--it was the failure of the Dems to win us over (or to even try--same in '04). Likewise, we third party supporters have to stop the rest of the world for being so sheeplike and figure out the right strategy for winning THEM to our side.
If you don't win, it's your own fault. YOU failed. If my guy doesn't win, it means I didn't work hard enough, or smart enough (admittedly, the deck is stacked against candidates who aren't bought in advance by Goldman Sachs).It's everyone else's job to prevent you from winning, not say, well, gee, you suck, you've sucked for decades, and clearly will continue to suck--but I'll vote for ya anyway. Uh-uh. YOu need to EARN my vote, and simply scaring me with images of Palin isn't enough (pretty close, though, will say that). I'm too old to keep being frightened.
All that said, I do wish that Nader would restore some degree of credibility by endorsing Obama and promising to remain a thorny loyal opposition to the dreary centrism he offers. A third party needs to be something other than a vociferous oppositional force every four years. That would be a start. Conversely, wish the author had pointed out that in solid blue states, a vote for Nader, howveer seemingly quixotic, will in have more substantial impact that wila vote for Obama.
My goal is not to elect RN president--it's to create a power block on the left that's the equivalent of the Christian Right in the GOP. Before you get the nod, you go before them and swear to defend the unborn, explain the role of the judeo-christian god in creating and establishing laissez-faire capitalism, and promise to push against the forces of "militant homosexuality" as they suvert the nations's kindergarten classrooms and public libraries. Now these peopel are half-mad, but they get what they want. We on the progressive left should be able to do something similar. You want our support in November? Promise us you'll support these ten planks in the campaign--or at least, that you'll carry them through once elected.
I loathe the Christian Right--have a chance if you can to look at most recent posts on my own site at
htt://www.nosuppertonight.com
-- but I can sympathize with their plight, being sold out every four years by the business wing of the GOP. I know the feeling. One of Ralph's lines continues to resonate: if you continue to grantthem your vote, they';; take your vote for granted. The response to 2000 made that clear--the Dems DO take our votes for granted; we're supposed to and expected to vote that slate no matter what. Uh-uh. I'll pull that particular lever, but they gotat start earning it.
The bail out didn't do the trick.
.
I’ll say it again…
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
.
Bush played '' GOTCHA" again...
What say you America ?????
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
.
" What did you learn today?
Did you learn how to believe? or...Did you learn how to think?"
~ Seventeen Traditions ~ by Ralph Nader
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSVDM2LZhOs
WCDEVINS and anyone else who has tried to engage the Obamahaters in debate.
My advice is DONT DO IT!
They only want to justify why they are voting for Nader or whoever and have no intent or ability to talk about change in the real world, a la the next four years of hopefully Obama.
I guess they all plan to live off of the grid so as not to support any Demofascist ideology.
You will find out for the most part that they feel their vote for Nader absolves them of what the US does in the next four years.
I think you did much better than I. I was reduced to yelling at them for being Republican Trolls but the truth is that they have pretty much the same effect on the discourse here.
By the way, I think it is telling that not one of them has been able to tell me after many pleas as to what they have done or are doing for third parties beside voting in the national election.
See you around.
Waaah! Waaah! Waaaaah! Haters! Attack, attack, attack.... that's all you can do. Attack Nader supporters, because you're an emotional 5 year-old. Good job getting your point across by acting arrogant and condescending, instead of talking about issues. Typical Democrat, probably doesn't even know what the issues are.
.That post wouldnt fly in a high school debate...sad really sad effort.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
redgreen writes:
"Dan, were you asleep during the previous eight years of the Clinton/Gore administration? Between repeal of Glass-Steagall, sabotage of multinational action on global warming, the years of bombing and sanctions on Iraq and the attack on Yugoslavia, NAFTA, WTO...well, I don't have all day to list examples of horrid Clinton/Gore policies that suggested a Gore administration wouldn't have been markedly different from the Bush administration. Support by mainstream Democrats like Obama, Pelosi, Biden, etc. for much of Bush's agenda--the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, domestic spying, no limits on credit card interest rates, and of course the bank bailout bill, suggest the same thing."
-----
Vote for Nader: www.votenader.org
Except for domestic spying, redgreen's assessment doesn't touch on social policy.
The Democrats' (and the Clintons') GREATEST betrayal of the mass of the people, and of the Left -- along with the Estate Benefits Recovery Act -- was "welfare reform", which decreed that what truly-single mothers really need is to "work" in some Wal-Mart-level slave-like situation.
What ABOUT poor people? Obama "supports" welfare reform, channels Bill Cosby (and Ronald Reagan) in favor of "middle class" mantras that have NOTHING at all to do with the plight of the underclasses. (And when Jesse Jackson demurred, in a supposedly-private whisper, he got REALLY sick.)
If Obama doesn't declare National Health on. the. day. he's "elected", you'll know you've been had. In the meantime, vote for Nader: even the "Democrats" can count.//
speaking of walmart, i wish everyone would boycott it! seriously.... then that would start the ball rolling towards a rebellion againt corporate greed on the grandest scale. we need more action instead of stupid articles like this one trying to "convince" us to vote for more of the corporatocracy and all that it entails. spare us the lecture ad nauseum, we, the anti-corporate voters and non DPAs are sick to death of it. it's now to the point where such articles do the very opposite of what it is supposedly intended for. i think you understand as we're on the same page...like many other fed-up posters
It's NEVER the year to support someone other than a Democrat, according to Democratic Party apologists like Dan Coleman. "Now is not the time" is something I've heard every year I've voted in a Presidential election (since 1980). The argument is dishonest in a number of ways.
First, apologists for the Democrats consistently minimize, ignore, or just lie about the similarities between the major-party candidates. Coleman does so when he claims that "Eight years later, we know that there was a big difference [between Bush and Gore] in such areas as war and peace, government regulation, civil liberties, court appointments, rule of law (and international law), environmental policy, and more." Dan, were you asleep during the previous eight years of the Clinton/Gore administration? Between repeal of Glass-Steagall, sabotage of multinational action on global warming, the years of bombing and sanctions on Iraq and the attack on Yugoslavia, NAFTA, WTO...well, I don't have all day to list examples of horrid Clinton/Gore policies that suggested a Gore administration wouldn't have been markedly different from the Bush administration. Support by mainstream Democrats like Obama, Pelosi, Biden, etc. for much of Bush's agenda--the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, domestic spying, no limits on credit card interest rates, and of course the bank bailout bill, suggest the same thing. As far as pursuing a political agenda that supports corporate interests at the expense of the rest of us is concerned, there's little difference between most Republicans and Democrats.
Second, there's this enormous attempt at fear-mongering centered around the supposedly huge risk that voting for third-party or independent Presidential candidates entails. Never mind that this has never in US history led to a Republican's election. (Even Coleman indirectly acknowledges that Bush did not win the 2000 election honestly, although he still tries to claim that Nader is somehow partly responsible for Bush's "victory.") With Obama currently leading by nearly 10% in the polls and, more importantly, looking like he's going to win by a landslide in the electoral vote (which is how the US presidency is decided), "now is not the time" is a patently ridiculous thing to say. Obama will win easily. The only explanation for articles like Coleman's is that they are part and parcel of the Democratic Party's attempt to stifle efforts at building a third party that rejects the pro-corporate status quo of the two-party duopoly.
Finally, there's the focus on short-term electoral outcomes as the be-all and end-all of politics: "But the fundamental reality is that neither McKinney nor Nader will come close to the 2% of the vote Nader received in the 2000 election. What they might achieve is winning enough votes in a key state to tip the race to the Republicans. That would be a tragic outcome." No, the real tragedy would be if voters who oppose war, welfare for the rich, and the rest of the agenda supported by Obama, Biden, McCain, Pelosi, and the rest of the Republicrat mainstream continue to guarantee their votes for them and refuse to significantly criticize their policies year after year. Voters who opposed the Iraq war turned out in droves in 2006 to give Democrats a majority in Congress even though most of the Democrats didn't and still don't oppose the war in Iraq, and what did it get them? Nothing. And that is precisely what this sort of orientation will achieve in 2008, 2010, and every other election in which it dominates the thinking and action of what passes for the political left in this country.
Real, deep political change doesn't happen via voting for Tweedledum or Tweedledee; it happens through the enormous pressure exerted by powerful grassroots movements like the Abolitionist movement, the labor movement of the early 1900s, and the civil rights movement. Support for third parties has often played an integral role in the success of social movements in the US and elsewhere. The book Third Parties in America sums this up nicely:
"The impact of third parties on American politics extends far beyond their capacity to attract votes. Minor parties, historically, have been a source of important policy innovations. Women's suffrage, the graduated income tax, and the direct election of senators, to name a few, were all issues that third parties espoused first. As Fred Haynes has argued, third parties in the nineteenth century "were pioneers in the conversion of American politics from almost exclusive attention to constitutional and governmental matters to the vital needs of the people." Why do some policy innovations originate outside the two-party system? What is implied here about the ability of the major parties to cope with new political issues?
Once a third party attracts substantial backing, one or both of the major parties, anxious to win over those supporters, seize the minor party's ideas as their own. Observed historian John Hicks:
Let a third party once demonstrate that votes are to be made by adopting a certain demand, then one or the other of the older parties can be trusted to absorb the new doctrine. Ultimately, if the demand has merit, it will probably be translated into law or practice by the major party that has taken it up....The chronic supporter of third party tickets need not worry, therefore, when he is told, as he surely will be told, that he is "throwing away his vote." A glance through American history would seem to indicate that his kind of vote is after all probably the most powerful vote that has ever been cast.
Thus the power of third parties lies in their capacity to affect the content and range of political discourse, and ultimately public policy, by raising issues and options that the two major parties have ignored. In so doing, they not only promote their cause but affect the very character of the two-party system."
Ben Franklin is accused of saying, "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."
Dan Coleman is right. This is the perennial liberal problem. The reason conservatives were so successful over the past generation is that they were able to get all their fractious groups to gather together around a common NARRATIVE--a narrative that explained simply and succinctly to the public exactly what it is that conservatives stand for.
Of course the wheels are off the conservative bus now because they abandoned their core principles--but look what they were able to do by hanging together. They've practically ruined this country by doing nothing more than hanging together.
Some of my fellow liberals are, I believe, some of the absolute smartest people on the planet. So how come we can't figure this out??? How to get "our" people hanging together???
Change comes incrementally. You're not going to wake up one morning and be in Shangri-La. In any given moment, you do what it is possible to do. And that's all you can do. When you are running a race, YOU HAVE TO RUN THE RACE. You don't blink or snap your fingers, and suddenly you're at the finish line.
I can't help thinking you third-party folks have fallen prey to the consumer culture's ethos of "you can have it all!! and you can have it RIGHT NOW!!!"
Do the work. Run the race. Vote for the best candidate who's actually electable. That's how you get what you want. There are no shortcuts. Third-party liberals haven't figured out how to get liberals to vote en masse for your candidate. This is evidence that you're not ready for primetime. How about, for example, we elect a bunch of Democrats that vote proportional representation in Congress into the law of the land? We'll see liberals coming out of the woodwork then! And then, having third- (and fourth- and fifth-, etc. parties) will actually mean something.
I think we need more people like Nader and Kucinich at the helm, but I must repeat: there are no shortcuts. If you want this, do the work.
Voting for fascist globalists is NOT doing the work!
Then convince me that voting for your candidate isn't a wasted vote.
Voting for people who are against the change you want doesn't change a thing; it reinforces the status quo.
But you haven't done the work. You haven't convinced a critical mass of people that a vote for Nader (or another third-party candidate) isn't a wasted vote.
I repeat: do the work.
Most Democratic voters don't have a progressive narrative to believe in. A good number of them are shockingly right-wing by objective standards on most issues. Basically you have millions of people with actual progressive issue orientations who vote with the Dems because, IMO:
- Most of them are not from working class backgrounds and have never needed to genuinely worry about military service, the minimum wage or health insurance. Most of the people who do need to worry about this are less likely to vote, accurately seeing that the two major parties offer nothing for them.
- Most Dems have had it drummed into their heads that coming out and voting for one of two candidates is a patriotic duty.
- Most Dems get most of their news from corporate TV. Good luck with that!
- Most Dems are too lazy to do party or movement building work. It's easier to get self-righteous about voting for Corporate Option B.
The narrative of someone like Nader requires some work and a recognition of having been previously snookered. That and the mainstream Dem narrative have nothing in common, either in tactic or position issues.
And: Blaming others for the failure of Nader's or McKinney's narratives isn't going to get you very far. It's your job to convince people. It's not that they're not listening, it's that you haven't figured out how to do it successfully yet.
That's what I'm saying. Obama's the one who finally came up with a narrative that's going to win this election: CHANGE.
So Obama is not as liberal as some would like? But Obama's the one who can get elected. There's no arguing with that.
Your plan is to get Nader or McKinney elected in 2008--but there's no way Nader or McKinney are gonna get elected in 2008, or 2012, or 2016, or beyond. That "plan" is dead in the water.
How do you plan to get a third-party candidate elected? I mean, other than just whining and hand-wringing on a message board?
Dems are too lazy? I beg to differ. Obama has run a hell of a campaign, and done it "on the ground" with motivated, excited Dems. Howard Dean preached the 50-state strategy--Obama used it, and Obama made it work.
If you can't have it exactly the way you want it, you're not going to play? That's childish.
"Change" isn't even a full thought let alone a narrative.
Obama took his corporate money - far more than McCain's - and made Rorshach ads and empty slogans. "Hope" & "change" - meaningless!
On ISSUE AFTER ISSUE, which is where narratives happen, Obama's votes and positions promise more war and corporate welfare.
I can't believe that you people presumably know better, and make excuses for supporting this war machine/Wall St/national security state turd of a candidate.
I can respect McCain voters more than Obama voters; they generally own up to agreeing with all of the awful things McCain (and Obama, although they fail to realize it) stand for. Obama voters can't even talk about issues, don't want to, deny the facts when presented.
"Most Democratic voters don't have a progressive narrative to believe in."
We've got to give them that progressive narrative, Chris, but progressively, not by forcing it down their throats with radical invective. Ronald Reagan took a middle-of-the-road USA and smilingly convinced it to move right against its own self-preservation. Had there been a left-leaning Dem in Reagan's place, the country would be far more left than right now, because people would have seen how positive social policies benefitted them all. Now the country is that much further right, our task is that much more difficult. And you are right, most voters today are not interseted in building a movement and will just vote corporate party. Obama campaigns to the right of center because that is where the voters are now. The hope is that, like an anti-Reagan, he will smilingly move the country leftward. I know it's a big hope, but I think it is all we have. Twenty years from now, the country may be leaning far enough left that we can get a progressive elected. I believe that is the whole point of the article we were discussing long ago.
You miss my point completely: Democrats and progressives are not at all the same groups of people. It's not my job to focus on Democrats specifically.
Beyond this, most eligible American voters are not Dems. A large plurality of the electorate is not registered to vote, and although you wouldn't know it from mainstream coverage, there's a pretty much even split between registerds of Dem/Rep and either small party or independent.
Thus Dems are a distinct minority of potential voters. And who are these people? College educated out of all proportion to rates for most Americans, and "true believers" in the system for the most part. Liberals only in comparison, and drawn on a small spectrum of political belief.
Largely the regular Dem voter has no vested personal interest in single payer, war or the like since they're probabaly doing pretty OK. It's when the 401K loses value or someone makes un-PC noises about identity politics that knickers get in a twist.
A working people's agenda would be only supported by the working people of the country, who unfortunately had the voting habit drummed out of them a long time ago by lying Democrat politicians who kept pulling the football away Lucy and Charlie Brown style.
My narrative, the one for the bottom 100,000,000 Americans acheiving the rights of a European worker, is not appealing to the effete, PC core of Dem voters, who are largely interested in cheap gas, their retirement accounts, reproductive rights (only in their own state if we're being honest) and feeling smug about doing yoga, eating bran not believing Bill O'Reilly.
I believe that virtually everything you say here is true - I can even hear Phil Ochs' "Love Me, I'm a Liberal" playing in the background (although I would blame the Republicans for convincing the American worker to vote for them largely against his own self-interest, not the Democrats.)
What goes unmentioned is we progressives are perhaps the smallest group of voters. How do we go about recruiting more voters to our causes or changing the system enough so our policies are addressed? As seriousprofessor notes nearby, this is the difficult job before us. We cannot just write off the faux-liberal Democrats, we have to win over as many of them as we can, or we'll never have the numbers.
I don't get you guys. WcDevin, you seem alright but Quizmasterchris has looked like a Repub Troll up to now. His post above is actually good.
I came here seven weeks ago and from what I have seen, the independents are in disarray and spend all their time yelling about how bad Obama is. Who here is happy with Obama or the Dems?
How is a tactical vote for Obama turn you into an "effete dem"?
I for one am as far left as you can go but I think tactically voting for Obama is better than voting for a third party right now.
You are not going to change the minds of those voting for Obama right now by yelling at them. Why not respect their decision and try to get them involved in a third party?
Are you just canvassing for votes now or are you representing Nader or McKinney or Socialists? You have to know by now but it seems most of you independents are just here for the ranting and raving.
I have literally begged many of you to tell me why I should support Nader and what is going on with him and his campaign. If you were truly building a movement then you are going about it all wrong.
I think most progressives are voting Obama this year for many reasons but if you think you are going to reel in independents with just bashing Obama and pointing out that Nader is a good guy then you will be very lonely.
And you know, as far as effete liberals go, I think most of you Nader supporters are effete. I know how bad this government is and how dissapointing the Dems are but you have to know who your enemies are.
I have been involved with community activism my entire life and I am going to get back in the game now. I am as real as they get but I am savvy.
Go ahead and build your third party but for now I am going to engage Democrats as they are the ones in power. None of us progressives are big Democratic supporters. Obama does not support single payer, for one and that is one of our core issues.
We can at any time mobilize and vote for another party. Many of us did in 2000 to get the greens on the ballot. But I for one do not think that I am not responsible for Bush because I voted for Nader. Neither should you feel like you are absolved from what the US does cause you voted for Nader now.
So, if it is tactics you are talking then let me offer you a little parable in the form of what may be the biggest Religious joke of all time, except of course for Scientology.
Here it is for your enjoyment.
'Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.'
I think we have a much better chance of getting non-voters to vote, and getting independents to vote small party.
Democrats, as CommonDreams displays every day, are largely a lost cause. The "D" after the name somehow turns people stupid. You might as well try to convince a born again to stop believing in Jesus, or spend all day pointing out to Tom Cruise that L Ron was a sci-fi writer.
You view is too narrow and ultimately quixotic for me to espouse. It has failed in the past and will probably fail now. I think there are plenty of Dems out there looking for a valid more progressive way to go. Giving them up as a lost cause puts progressivism back too many squares; pushing them a few spaces left could gain us so much more.
You have it exactly right when you write this:
"We've got to give them that progressive narrative, Chris, ..."
This is why it's important to conceive of political action as an ongoing process, of which voting is only one point along a continuum. Doing the work of constructing the narrative is the real challenge.
Josephine Ortez
Sorry Coleman. I believe in Democracy and so your guilt tripping
won't work on me. The stakes are ALWAYS high.
Bravo, redgreen! Well done!
Dan Coleman is a garden variety lesser-evilist. His arguments are weak and patronizing. First Coleman says, "Those on the Left understand that, in 2000, Nader did not cause Al Gore to lose to George Bush. Gore did that all on his own." Then he follows it by blaming Nader: "Nader's 90,000+ votes there in bright relief..."
-flawed argument. There is no evidence that Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't run. Some like me wouldn't have voted or would have voted for someone else. I was not about to vote for a Dim.
The argument about Nader's "no difference between Gore and Bush" is speculation because we don't know what Gore as president would have done.
Why the hell haven't the Democrats impeached Bush if they are so against him? Why do the Democrats support the Republican agenda of war, diminished civil rights and massive transfers of wealth from our pockets into the pockets of the greediest Wall Street fat cats that need it the least?
The problem with lesser-evilism is that it doesn't work when both choices are unacceptable. Both parties promise more war, more transfers of wealth for the obscenely rich, no single payer and government spying. A choice between allowing someone to poke a stick in your eye or a sharp jab in your ear with a pencil isn't really a choice. Got anything better than lesser-evilism?
There is also no evidence that NO Nader voters would have voted for Gore, a point Nader apologists all conveniently ignore. Take some responsibility, Ric, break the self-centered Naderite mold; we're all in this together.
There is NO evidence Gore lost FL, by 537 votes or at all.
There is NO evidence that you respect democracy, either.
let me repeat here again. and is there NO evidence that at least 250,000 registered democrats, mind you, voted for bush in 2000????
that gets lost in the shuffle every time.... strange isn't it?
No, actually there is:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110904.html
You either believe that Bush cheated or that Nader "cost" Gore, but both at the same time lacks even internal logic.
yes, and so get ready for some more voter fraud next week. i wouldn't be surprised if it happens again. actually i would be more surprised if either candidate won without a protest or a whimper from the opposing corporate party.
I respect Democracy, but we don't have that here in the USA. What we have is Crony Capitalism.
...and you are so vehement in your support of the cronies...
No I'm not; you have never seen that in any of my posts. I just believe in a different means to the same end. It's frustration that progressives, via our cat-herding propensities, will squander this opportunity to advance our agenda together.
The New World Order is not on my agenda.
Thanks for trying to discuss intelligently.
Break out of your groupie mode, Devins. We for sure are all in this together. I am not a Naderite, although I will vote for Nader or McKinney if I can. I would certainly not vote for Obama. Those you accuse of self-centeredness are basically trying to hold together a bit of self-respect.
"Those you accuse of self-centeredness are basically trying to hold together a bit of self-respect."
And failing miserably, I'm afraid. It is many of the Naderites here who exhibit the gang-like with-us-or-against behavior. I actually thought highly of Nader and his positions before encountering the hateful intolerance and petty personal attacks of some of the Nader supporters on this site.
I am not a groupie (you mean for Obama, I assume?), far from it in fact. I see myself as a realist, you might call me a lesser-evilist. Obama was never my choice and I vehemently disagree with many of his votes and policies. But I see his election as the only chance, however small, that we have of taking steps to improve this country. I'm all for instant run-off, elimination of the corporate duopoly, ending the wars, closing military bases around the world, impeaching Bush, all those talking points that nannie always spams us with. But that won't happen overnight.
It would be great if we could all agree to vote for Ralph and have everything change to a glorious new progressive world. But the world doesn't work that way, no matter how idealistic we are. Nader has run before and things haven't improved. He's made virtually no difference before and I just can't see how voting for him this time will be the charm. He is unelectable and therefore irrelevant to what direction this country will take over the next four years.
The world "doesn't work that way" because Democrats backstabbed by their party over and over again refuse to allow/make it happen.
And how will my vote for a 3rd party this year fix that? I believe this is the whole point of the long-forgotten article we are supposed to be discussing.
Are you seriously proposing that discussants prove a negative? That is illogical.
No, what I am saying is that I'd like even a single Naderite to consider the possibility that in 2000 some voters, maybe having heard Ralph's "Bush=Gore" rhetoric, were drawn away from Gore to vote for Nader. (Realize that this voter would not be the dedicated, intransigent, Dems-are-the-root-of-all-evil ideologue that the average Nader maniac here seems to be.) After all, what was the harm, the innocent voter may have reasoned? Nader will never win and my vote won't matter. Well, we've all seen eight years of that harm.
It amazes me how defensive you all get, to the point of twisting arguments and avoiding all discussion, on the impact, however small, (and we are talking 537 votes here) of Nader's candidacy on the 2000 election. Not one of you has ever owned up even to an ounce of responsibility, for yourselves or your candidate.
Oh, posh, am I seriously expecting discussants to prove a negative? That's just so illogical. No, professor, I'm looking for something much more simple. I'm merely seeking a single Nader voter with the intregrity and grounding in reality to accept some responsibility for his actions. But from what I've seen of Nader's Evaders here, that's the really illogical assumption.
"No, what I am saying is that I'd like even a single Naderite to consider the possibility that in 2000 some voters, maybe having heard Ralph's "Bush=Gore" rhetoric, were drawn away from Gore to vote for Nader."
No. People who felt that Nader best represented their principles voted for Nader.
At the time, maybe they thought that. Maybe they thought voting Nader wouldn't affect the outcome. Maybe they thought they were casting a harmless protest vote - all these and more have been postulated by posters here as rationales for voting 3rd party. Whatever the individual situation, Nader voters were one of the factors, albeit a very small one (as I have said before if you'd stopped to read it) in the appointment of Bush to the presidency. No Naderite will own up to even that. Your close-mindedness on this and other issues is absolutely breathtaking.
Um, no, we did that voting for Nader would "affect the outcome." We thought that it'd get more votes for Nader, which is the predictable outcome and the only one we were interested in, because he and not any other candidate was our candidate.
It's called voting. Why is this difficult? You don't vote and worry that it might hurt another candidate. If you're that concerned, switch your vote.
Why the mental block that the Democrats are naturally appealing and are owed votes?
Just wait till they're in power. The rest of US will have to pay and pay and pay for our disloyalty to the Committee.
What I have postulated so many times before (apologies to those here who actually take the time to read) is that SOME Nader voters may not have been as dedicated to the cause as you are. I respect your rationale for voting and I never assumed all Nader votes would have gone to Gore. What I did say is that it is possible that some wavering potential Gore supporters, hearing Nader's "Bush=Gore" talking point, voted for Nader as a protest, perhaps believing that their vote (not yours) would not affect the outcome anyway. In the incredibly complex fiasco that was Florida 2000, this may have been one of the factors. Why cannot one of you even acknowledge that possibility? Therein is the mental block - you seem to think every Nader vote was cast by one as dedicated as you. Your intransigence on this just amazes me.
What the hell is YOUR POINT??!! Perhaps you are the most effective poster that the Obama campaign could have hired for today.
It seems to me that the question of electoral fraud completely subsumes other cause-and-effect questions.
Good one, prof. Of course it does, to you. That's how you Naderites avoid any responsibility for anything.
Aha, Speaking of responsibility, how about Democrats take responsibility for crapping on the voters that put them in power in Congress two years ago. How about John Conyers take responsibility for duping the electoral into voting for his Party while backstabbing them once in power? How about Nancy Pelosi and Henry Heid take responsibility for not upholding the U.S. Constitution and prosecuting (impeaching) G.W. Bush. Yeah right. Naderites "avoid any responsibility for anything." Just like Republicans, Democrats pass and project all your failings along to others and then accuse others of doing them. THAT is why there is such a vile reaction to your party and candidate. Enough already. Ptewey!
Even though you guys just keep changing the topic while avoiding my question, I'll bite. I agree with all your indignation about the sell-out Democrats, jozef - I just cannot see how my vote for Nader will change anything, where at least my vote for a Democrat will remove the Republican scum. Then maybe down the road I can cast a vote to remove the lesser-evil Democratic scum. Maybe I'm just not as visionary as you guys; on the other hand maybe I'm more realistic. I wish we had a way of electing a viable progressive, but we are either gonna get McCain or Obama. Nothing we do or say here will change that, so I'd prefer the corporate choice to be Obama.
foggy gibberish, obfuscation--what was your question again?
Your "question" has been answered a thousand times over. Your "questioning" reminds me of a more verbose version of the noted Jake Newton. It doesn't matter what anyone has to say: the response is always the same--a one-note cant that will never find a satisfying or productive dialogue. You are not building anything. All I hear is a trumpeting of the same old Rovian/Pelosian "reality". Many of us are just so tired of being "good Germans".
You are right, the question has been answered by dodging, shifting blame, and avoiding responsibility by every single Nader poster here. Maybe the point is moot now, but the hackles-up defensive posture adapted by so many of you is indicative of a broader intolerance and close-mindedness. It is too bad, at this juncture when the right-wing brand is worth dirt, that we progressives cannot seem to find a common ground from which to take advantage. The system is still rigged, and we are all going to lose again.
You are right, the question has been answered by dodging, shifting blame, and avoiding responsibility by every single DPA poster here. The obsession with "Naderites" in itself, seems to be that very same "hackles-up defensive posture" you speak of. If you agree that the system is rigged, why is it sooo important for all of us to come together to place our bets on that system which spits on us and serves the chosen few.
Dems and Reps are now openly talking about The New World Order, a "new global governance, a new global monetary system. The North American Union, making headway under the euphemistic Security and Prosperity Partnership, has been pooh-poohed by politicians (including Obama) and the MSM as urban myth. Please consult Robert Pastore (architect of the NAU and a high priest of the Council on Foreign Relations). Ask Biden. Ask "oldy-goldy" Dem senator Gary Hart about the New World Order. Ask Obama's foreign policy advisor, Brezinzski. Why can none of these cretins talk about dead Iraqis--only talk of strategy in the bogus War on Terror and the "inevitable" triumph of Globalism. The Party has sold out U.S. sovereignity and as even the DPAs know, have been subverting the sovereignty of other nations for longer than I can remember. The destruction of sovereign nation states is the goal. The consolidation into regional "market states" functioning under a one-world corporate/military governance is their ideal. Come together under Bush/Obama ?!?! That is insanity.
Nothing like a little topic-changing tirade to dodge the issue at hand and kill a discussion, eh?
No, I think it's all part of the discussion. I think many Democrats are either unaware of Globalism (New World Order) or just do not want to open a discussion of it and Obama's implications in the New World Order. It's better for the Masters if we stay distracted with left/right, liberal/conservative, Dem/Rep as the elite global mafias and their representatives trip merrily down their road of plunder. The good cop/bad cop history of the last several administrations, not to mentions Obama's voting record and inner circle of advisors has been discussed ad infinitum--not to mention Obama's deaf ear to the wishes of his supposedly progressive constituency. As far as this topic, this question you keep referring to--good luck.
I agree with most of your views here. But since elections, corporate duopoly, the media, 98% of the money, and the narrative are all in control of the enemy, how do we affect change? The game is rigged against us, perhaps even already played. I guess I am just too frustrated to see a way forward other than hoping Obama gets elected and moves left; a hope which, admittedly, vanishes a little more each day.
then stop thinking "like all the rest of people..." that's why we have no realistic chance. before any change can occur, such thinking has got to go. which one of you will stop being such defeatists and capitulate time and time again?
How about if Democratic voters start taking responsibility for supporting candidates who they know (or can easily find out) are crapping on them--as well as people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and much of the rest of the world? Voting for lesser evils means being complicit in evil.
I am not a "Naderite," although your insistence of same is revealing as a way of dimissing the merits of an argument before examining them.
As for whether I avoid responsibility for anything, that is a silly comment that adds nothing to the discourse.
Vincent Buglosi lays out the case for one aspect of electoral fraud quite well in his book The Betrayal of America. I'm sorry that it's more important to you to make personal comments and sweeping generalizations than it is to address cause-and-effect in a rational way.
Sorry if I mis-labeled you, but the Naderites here do tend to gang up in a defensive shell. And I am sorry that no Nader supporter will consider that one factor, however small, in the complex 2000 election debacle was possible Gore voters who moved to Nader. It would also be nice if they denounced the long disproven Bush=Gore rhetoric which was at the heart of that shift, but that's hoping for too much.
Why should Nader bear any responsibility at all, for your grade school mentality scapegoating? You Democrats who attack Nader have ZERO self-reflection. You're sore losers. Gore never had those votes, because he did not compete well enough to get them. Do you believe that your party is so privileged, it gets to lay claim to votes that it never received? You blame people who don't even give a shit about your candidate, for your candidate's loss. Get a life.
Dan Coleman writes:
"But the fundamental reality is that neither McKinney nor Nader will come close to the 2% of the vote Nader received in the 2000 election."
-----
I expect Coleman is way wrong about this. Certainly he is waaay wrong about much. One thing about which Coleman is NOT wrong:
"Supporters of McKinney and Nader will correctly point out the many issues on which their candidates stand out: universal healthcare, a reduction in the military budget, an end to the death penalty, over-turning of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act, an end to the drug war and its handmaiden, the prison-industrial complex, full equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, etc."
No candidate who DOESN'T guarantee National Health deserves yur vote, period. No candidate who intends to escalate the assault on Afghanistan deserves your vote. No candidate who endorsed the corporate "bailout" deserves your vote.
Yesterday -- alarmed that anybody who claims his hometown is Carrboro, North Carolina could be so wrong-headed :^) -- I sat here and wrote an extended reply to Coleman's point above, and it disappeared in the browser.
Just WHO runs the de facto censorship/suppression of those who decline to join the personality cult of the mob-friendly Obama, would be interesting to know -- along with how many on the "Left" are so afflicted.
"Supporting either of these candidates this year would be a big mistake for the Left"? When does Coleman think it might be okay to vote as we please? The polls and pundits all seem to agree that the CHANGEling -- with, God help us, Colin Powell et al. in tow -- is a shoo-in.
Because of the corporate "bailout" (given Nader's long history on the corporations), I believe "the Left", and other elements who may be immune to the manufactured personality cult endorsed by the hijacked "Democrats", should vote for Ralph Nader. (If Nader and McKinney, at least, could come into coalition, that would be a good thing.)
Anybody who missed Nader at the third-party debate moderated by Chris Hedges should seek out the video at cspan.org. (I watched the Nader debate live, but/and have been unable so far to get CSPAN's link to the Nader video to load. Do others experience THIS?)
As to Obama, if he doesn't declare National Health NEXT WEEK, the MOMENT he's "elected" -- if this Stalinist farce actually constitutes an election, rather than a corporate raffle -- look out.
In the meantime, vote for Ralph Nader: www.votenader.org
"No candidate who DOESN'T guarantee National Health deserves yur vote" Ding! Nice post, good points.
To summarize the author's point, "2008 is not the year for democracy."
I disagree, and I shall vote for someone other than the two Bilderberg Group, Bohemian Club, CFR, WTO, and Trilateral Commission controlled pawns. When the Democrats and Republicans all belong to the same private societies, and are influenced by the same wealth oriented elites, all the important issues will continue to be ignored in the press and government, and we'll think it's all just about a few tax percentage points at this level or that.
There are major flaws in our society, and I'm going to elect someone who is willing and free enough to address those flaws. Dan Coleman, every year is a year for democracy. You and your essays pollute and dilute our democratic process.
Aloha, salud, lechiem,
- Tobias
http://www.youtube.com/user/tobiasaurusrex
Wrong. You are not going to "elect" anyone if you don't vote for Obama, especially in a swing state but with this Biden craziness it would be safe anyway to up the popular vote.
Please keep fighting people like Dan Coleman. Rush Limbaugh loves people like you on the left.
Oh sorry I know. I forgot that Nader would secretly align with Putin and Jujitsu the Binders in one fell swoop. I am sure you got this idea from a video game but I am holding out hope in that you are aware of some serious Jedi mind tricks that we are not privy too yet.
Stop scaring people and get in the game.
We are all tired and scared man. We are all on the same side. Obama supporters are not "traitors". Progressive Dems are your friends man. We know we live in a fascist state but not all of us have the mendacity to remind everyone all the time.
How will the Pakistanis know when the Bush neo-con missiles stop killing their children and the friendly Progressive Dem missiles begin killing their children?
WE are not going to elect anyone anyway. We are merely urged to affirm and legitimize this corrupt charade.
highkarate,
Please watch Naomi Klein's interview discussing Obama, those who fund him and own him, and what he's actually said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e4daR54iIQ
He's funded and advised by the same old, same old. The only change will be a new suit.
Aloha, salud, lechiem,
- Tobias
http://www.youtube.com/user/tobiasaurusrex
Sorry. I voted early for Nader. No. I'm not getting into "your", nor the Democratic Party's game. The Progressive Democrats (with a capital "P" at that) are with us on the same side. Yeah, sure they are. Thank you Nancy Pelosi, Henry Heid, and John Conyers, etc. You surely came through for the "Progressive Democrats" who voted you in 2006. Your lies misled the electorate as much as Bush's lies did. And you enabled Bush of almost 8 years. Spare us please.
But 537 Nader votes in Florida absolutely had no input whatsoever on the Bush years. Thrilled you wasted your vote as another of Nader's Evaders for McCain.
That's right: "no input whatsoever on the Bush years". That "honor" goes to the 350,000 Democrats who voted FOR Bush in Florida. They are the culprits along with Al Gore who rolled over and played dead after losing his home state of Tennessee. I never waste my vote as I vote for the candidate I want and for their platform and issues. And you, sir, don't own my vote and can't declare it wasted. The vote is not yours to so declare. It is mine. And that is the crux of the matter, isn't it. Democrats DEMAND ownership of the Nader vote. Sorry. That shade of brown may not be as dark as John McCain's, but it is way too dark nonetheless.
"I voted for Ralphie and I'm not responsible for anything." Oh, would that we could all be so simplistic. Oh, the Dems are so bad, the Dems did everything bad, the Dems are worse than the republicans, Obama's the devil, the Dems didn't give poor old Nader a chance. You guys are completely delusional.
Read a little more, jozef - I never said Dems owned the Nader vote, especially with all you intractable raving unrealistic Naderites here proving THAT point in every thread imaginable. I said some prospective Dem voters voted Nader, perhaps enough to swing Florida, and not even a single craven Naderite has even been willing to discuss that possibility.
The Dems are completely evil. Look at the Iraq and PATRIOT Act Senate votes - 99-0, 99-1, 98-0... this is Nader's fault, or the Dems..?
I agree, but how is voting for Nader going to fix it? Convince me instead of insulting me. Why shouldn't we get rid of the more evil Republicans first and work on ridding ourselves of non-progressive Dems (admittedly, almost all of them) after we do that? The Republican brand is so worthless right now that we have a real chance to kick them to the curb for a long time, and move to change the path of the Dems to a progresive one. How is my vote for Nader this year going to make that happen? I am willing to listen, but I haven't heard an argument that will gives me any confidence.
Voting for candidates you agree with helps spur change you agree with, and voting for candidates that disagree with you 180 degrees on issues after issue is suicidal.
Nader represents my views in large part, Obama is a warmonger and corporate shill.
Now kindly explain how voting for a warmonger and corporate shill will make the world one big Happyland.
I never said my vote for Obama would create Happyland; nothing will, including your vote for Nader. I just don't see everything in the crisp black-and-white you do. I think walking towards the left slowly is a better strategy than protest voting in hopes of influencing the powers that be. You think that is a dead end which perpetuates the status quo. Both are valid points, and our inability to agree probably means more of what neither of us want. It is frustrating.
Obama isn't walking left slowly, it's running right quickly. What is "left" about Obama? Give us specifics!
And how do you "push" Obama left (I don't believe this is possible) with NOTHING to bargain with? You vote Nader or Green, at least you show that some people won't accept the bailout, the PATRIOT Act and war.
You are voting for those, endorsing that set of policies, and giving Obama ZERO reason to listen to the left before 2012.
Not to worry about fixing anything. THE FIX IS IN!! You give your stamp of approval!! WE ARE LIVING IN A FASCIST STATE!! Obama will decide NOTHING. Obama and McCain are poster boys for an agenda for a global fascist government.
Good rhetoric, I even agree with most of it, but I see no solutions there.
You still haven't answered to the charge that 250,000 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida in 2000.
Answer it. Because otherwise, it invalidates everything you said.
I most certainly did, in a number of posts above. But your sole tactic as a Naderite is to deny any responsibility, fail to answer the question, then turn it around to blame someone else and demand an answer to a different question (which I have already answered). How is demanding an answer from me while refusing to acknowledge my prior inquiry a valid discussion technique? That is not discussion, it's just deflection, and, once again, failing to accept responsibility.
I don't really care who you vote for, but if you're gonna blab so loudly about your moral superiority and progressive cred vs the rest of us sell-outs please be willing to accept a little of the responsibility that comes with casting your vote.