Quick, somebody ask me what I think of Ralph Nader.

[kellinator]

my_cat_tim left this comment on my last post last night:

"I am a confused Canadian. American politics are quite conservative. Kerry is running on basically the same platform Bush is, they are arguing over small matters. Kerry voted for the war in Iraq. He has no exit strategy and has not ruled out having a permanent American military base in Iraq.

Kerry has no commitment to universal medicare and affordable drug prices. Raising the minimum wage to seven dollars an hour is better than nothing, but the working poor still will not be able to buy much and can forget about medical insurance.

Will it really matter who wins the election? Wouldn't it be better to vote for Nader?"

Well, here's your answer.

Wow, I guess I've been misinformed. I was under the impression that the international community regarded Bush as a dangerous ideologue. Now I have a Canadian telling me to vote for Nader. *Twilight Zone music* Fine by me, though; I've been meaning to post my Nader rant.

To answer your question: Yes, the two major parties are remarkably similar (though I, and most of my friends, feel that Bush is trying to steer the Republicans to a theocratic far right). It's something my tenth-grade civics textbook referred to as "the American ideological consensus." It's one of the main reasons third parties aren't major players: as soon as a plank of a third-party platform gains popular support, one or both of the major parties co-opts it.

Now, to Nader:

Nader ran in 2000 on the platform that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, so why not vote for him -- the same idea you express in your comment. Well, in my opinion, if the past four years have proven anything, it's that there is a difference. Say what you will about Al Gore (and talk about some irony -- Nader, as a Green, going after one of the most environmentally aware politicians in recent years), you cannot deny this: If Al Gore were President, we would not be in Iraq. I think that's pretty damning -- even before you bring in Bush's other "accomplishments" as President. (My father's been out of work for two years. How's that economic recovery going again?)

Please understand that I am not criticizing third parties. I think third parties have a lot to bring to the table, and I'd like to see them get a greater voice, especially starting on the local level. A Libertarian or Green candidate winning the presidency right now isn't feasible -- but what about on the local level? You have to start somewhere.

But Ralph Nader is not a third-party candidate. The Greens told him to get lost. So now he's an ego candidate. He's refusing to recognize that he's been proven wrong. He's running a campaign that's funded by Republicans who freely admit that they're just trying to take votes away from Kerry. He's being used by the right and he doesn't care.

Let me make this perfectly clean: If you're voting for Michael Badnarik or David Cobb, I respect that. I'm also a pragmatist and think if you're voting Green, then you might want to consider if the environment can handle four more years of Bush, but I digress. But if you vote for Ralph Nader, you ARE wasting your vote. You're blowing your vote on a candidate who stands for nothing more than his own egomania. Nader cannot admit that he is wrong. That makes him just as bad as Bush.

Comments

[zitronenhai.livejournal.com]

I think you are absolutely right about Nader. Ego candidate, yes.

As for the differences between the two main parties...

To me, the issue of reproductive freedom is paramount. Kerry wants women to have it, Bush wants to take it away. Separation of church and state - Kerry will work to preserve it, Bush wants to continue diminishing this very important boundary. Bush wants the rich to get richer, screw the poor and the old. Kerry's policies are much less likely to favor only the wealthiest Americans the way Bush's do. I know you know all this already. I'm leaving this comment for your friend, I think. These issues probably don't show up on the world stage, since they are internal policies. These are the things that guide this American's voting.

Thanks for listening. :)

[reannon.livejournal.com]

I used to respect the hell out of Nader, back when he stood for something besides his own ego.

It's worth noting that Nader withdrew his name from consideration as the Green Party candidate, but said he would welcome their endorsement. Niiiice. He didn't want to be bound by their platform, but he wanted their campaign cash and assistance.

At any rate, you're right. This is not a year to waste a vote. That was 1996. This is our Brave New World, and unless we want to bury the Constitution, we've got to get rid of the current administration.

[rocketmelee.livejournal.com]

You've summed up my position on Nader in a nutshell.

I met him at Millsaps when he was running in 2000. I really liked and respected him. I *hate* it when I'm so thoroughly disallusioned...

[darkmattr.livejournal.com]

Voted for Nader.
Did not waste my vote.
Voting for Kerry.
Will not waste it again.

Not much to add.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

You've got it in one, Kelly.

[pokeyturtle.livejournal.com]

what's al gore's environmental cred? he wrote a book. when he became veep that all went right out the window.

anybody who runs for president does it for ego reasons. no offense but i really wish people would find a better reason to piss on nader.

and as i keep saying to people, nader isn't the one who lost gore the election. gore didn't lose the election. and it's gore's fault the election was so close that nader could even be considered a threat to him. history tells us that the veeps of successful two-term presidents usually wind up being elected right afterward themselves. how did he manage to screw up when history was on his side?

lots of reasons. won't go into 'em here.

i'm not voting for nader, mind you. i want to see the greens get their federal matching funds and so i might have voted for cobb, BUT, i would rather see the greens get more of a state and local presence and see how they run things before i go voting for them on a national level. so i'm going to vote for kerry. but i refuse to blame nader for gore's so-called loss (which really wasn't), and i agree with him that the dems and repubs are more alike than they are different. clinton wasn't so great for this country in some ways either, you know... in some ways, for instance, he really screwed the poor. not in the same way he wanted to screw monica lewinsky, but.

[sirinek.livejournal.com]

Gore lost because:

1) Gore's campaign did nothing to get people excited. He ran as if he was a shoe-in. What did Gore do to motivate young people to get involved?

2) Gore ignored his own home state and lost it as a result.

3) Bush ran as a moderate and Gore tried to move toward the "center" (heh if such a thing existed) and alienated more liberal voters who looked at the Greens or just didn't vote. With both major candidates running for the middle, of course people didnt think there was a difference!

4) You have to admit Nader had some small part. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND votes in Florida on a Bush victory of just over 500 votes. The same thing, though on a much smaller scale happened in New Hampshire. But you can also attribute this to #1.

[alladinsane.livejournal.com]

[pennyproud.livejournal.com]

As someone who actually has donated both time and money to the Badnarik campaign, I have to agree with you about Nader, wholesale. He's a public spectacle at this point - a less explosive old-white-guy version of Al Sharpton. He's become a professional thorn in the side of the establishment parties.

I just really am getting frustrated at the media blackout about the Libertarian and Green party candidates. They both got *arrested* last week for peacefully protesting their exclusion from the debates. I wouldnt've heard about it had it not been for LJ. It's just incredibly aggravating.

[orfeo517.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

One of my best friends keeps saying that he's going to be voting between two Bush's this November. Generally, I agree with my friend's ideology, but I've had to tell him that Kerry would not have gone into Iraq, throwing away American lives based on a threat that turned out to be a "paper tiger" because of a plan concocted by a handful of men (who are now considered the original "neo-cons") in the early 90's, or before, because Saddam had threatened Israel while we were giving him weapons. Whew! Try saying that in one breath.

[sujata.livejournal.com]

Nicely done, Kells! :-)

*applause*

[stevietee.livejournal.com]

As I said in reply to the post of your Canadian friend, I'm voting for Kerry not because I think he's going to be a great president, but because I KNOW that Bush is a BAD president and he needs to go!

[darkerdays.livejournal.com]

is kerry running a similar platform as bush? of course. he is trying to win people that formerally thought highly of bush over to him. and because he wants to seem like a moral person.

there are alot of interest groups that they have to make their platforms reach.

however, kerry is NOT bush. they actually differ on alot of things. one of the big ones, as someone who hasnt had health care in over 2 years, is healthcare. if bush had it his way, no one would have healthcare. kerry thinks that we all should have health care. we are the strongest nation in the world and we dont care about the welfare and betterment of our people? wtf?

bush's platform is that he doesnt care if you are too poor to afford another kid, you cant have an abortion. and b/c you are too poor, you wont have health care for your kid. there is NO reason every child shouldnt have health care. no reason. when you are a healthy child, you are a healthy adult, and that makes healthcare cost lower as time goes on.

bush doesnt believe women have a right to choose. bush keeps trying to separate church and state in another country while trying to bring them together here.

bush would like us to live in fear of terrorism.

bush would have the middle class paying more taxes than the rich.

bush started a war out of personal agenda and doesnt give a damn about world opinion.

i could go on and on and on... but i would suggest www.johnkerry.com

[grunion.livejournal.com]

Why is it that everyone seems to think that the American Green Party has something to do with the environment? Sure, in Germany, the Greens focus on almost nothing else. Here though, the Green Party stands for such lovely things as seizing the largest companies in the nation and guaranteeing jobs for everyone. Now this MAY actually be good for the environment, I'll not even touch that debate right now. The thing is, I've read my Engles, my Marx, my Lenin (hey, I look like the guy already), my Stalin, my Mao, and evein my Minh. The Green platform really isn't anything the real Communists wouldn't suggest and support.

Nader's been just a little beyond bonkers for a while now, I'm just glad he's decided to show it.

As for the "If Al Gore were President, we would not be in Iraq." comment. I have to agree. Mind you, I see that as a negative. This is one of those areas we'll simply have to agree to disagree - neither one of us will be changing our minds, and I'd hate for discussions to enter one particular realm. I'll grant you that if Gore had won, there would be no conventional US ground forces in Iraq as there are today.

[my-cat-tim.livejournal.com]

LOL Kellinator!

That is a LOT of passion for a party that cannot bring itself to condemn Bush's actions in Iraq. Mr. Clinton thinks the whole problem in Iraq is that Fallujah (and other hot spots) are simply tough neighbourhoods.
I am intrigued by the idea of an "ideological consensus", and the idea of contagion (when the good ideas of third parties become adopted by the major two). With the two main parties dominating the media, how do third parties get heard to present their ideas? It seems to me that it is the parties themselves that get to define the issues.

Ideological consensus makes me think of those single party states on both the right and the left. Ideological consensus right now means millions of people with no medical insurance and millions of children living below the poverty line.

I have to admit I was surprised when you guys went into Iraq. No body thought you would do that. But what would Gore have done? Who knows. Clinton bombed the crap out of the former Yugoslavia despite the fact that the bombing itself increased the Serb oppression against the Kosovars. I recall CLinton had a bombing run over Iraq as well. And of course we have to remember the infamous aspirin factory bombing. Even if bin Laden owned the damn aspirin factory, did Clinton think he was on the premises stuffing cotton balls in the aspirin bottles?

But more importantly, what will Kerry do differently now that the deed is done? Now that you are in Iraq what will Kerry do to get you out?

I do not follow how Nader is an ego candidate. He is at least putting issues on the table the other two refuse to talk about. Who cares who funds him?

How is it even possible to be environmentally reponsible when BOTH parties advocate such high levels of consumption? Anyone who has more than one car or TV or a house the size of the Sopranos' cannot be too serious about environmental concerns. How many vehicles does Kerry drive again?

Jobs WILL be outsourced. Perhaps there is not much that can be done about that. But certainly something can be done for the people who lose them. Kerry does not talk about this. Private medical insurance will still run the heath care system, drug prices will still be beyond the reach of many. People are expected to live on Walmart wages. But there is an ideological consensus. I do not think Bush is the only dangerous ideologue!

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

If Al Gore were president, would we be in Iraq? I can't say for sure, I think we might. But I do know one thing. We would be somewhere. Maybe invoved in some genocide in africa or stuck fighting warlords in some other hellhole, but we'd be in a war. The Al and Bill show took US troops all over the world and brought american technology to some mighty remote uncivilized corners of the world, and used that technology to position explosives very carefully on targets selected from orbit. I don't have any reason to think that after 911 he wouldn't have invaded afghanistan, with similar results. I don't think he would have done any better at discouraging the lust for vengance and action we as a nation were experiencing at that time. He might have been better at getting bi-partisan support for it though. It's easier to sell republicans on democrat military action than vice versa.

[wintersweet.livejournal.com]

Amen.

[wacko1138.livejournal.com]

There's a number of misstatements in your Canadian friend's words (though it is interesting to see an outside perspective). don't have time right now to actually respond, so I would just suggest factcheck.org as a place to get what appears to be more accurate information than most sources have

[wacko1138.livejournal.com]

One thing I do want to comment on before I rush to work, is that while Congress did for to authorize force, it was not a bill that was passed to start the war. It authorized force if the president thought it was necessary and tied him to working through the UN (you can find the full text here. FactCheck a little while back posted a quote from Bush at that time saying he thought the bill would actually help to prevent a war and sold it to Congress that way (basically, if we puff up our chest, Saddam will back down). Now for Kerry (and the rest of Congress to have bought that does not speak all that well for them. FactCheck did also post some quotes against the war from Kerry shortly after it started that read almost word for word like some of his recent quotes so I think he thought it would help stave off a war as well. anyway, I'm now running late.