We’re told to vote for John Kerry so Bush loses. Both sides are agitating the people so we’ll feel desperate about this, & think we have to pick one or the other.
Wait a moment. That’s an advertising technique. Ever notice how you really want to see that movie in the run-up to opening day, then it opens, the ads stop, & you–just don’t care? It’s emotional manipulation. So’s this. Only this isn’t about opening day ticket sales, but power over the largest military in Earth’s history.
How much difference is there between Bush & Kerry, really?[ul][li]They’re both welfare-state liberals who scorn fiscal conservatism, which puts the lie to the right-wing claim that “Democrats waste our money.”[]They have no fundamental differences on the “War on Terror.” Kerry could stand up & say, “This is a criminal problem, not a reason to bomb women & children,” but he voted for war.[]They both have the prima facie appearance of classic “empty suits”: Guys who hold the office so someone less personable can wield power.[/ul][/li]
Wait a minute! Aren’t they fraternity brothers? Are we being played?
I think the two-party leadership learned that they have to keep the public hyper-polarized, so no one dares vote for a third party, after Perot took all those votes. From their point of view, Perot stole those votes, which they need so badly. And Kerry really is “Bush Lite.”
So, if we really want “Anyone but Bush,” why not rally around Ralph Nader? Make those GOP businessmen who got him on the ballot eat that!
Oh, yeah, you think I’m fringe. I was going to vote for Kerry, lesser of two offenses & all that. Then it occurred to me that my argument to convert a Bush voter meant that Kerry could do what Bush couldn’t get the people to agree to, because he’s not “crazy idiot Bush,” he’s “calm, reasonable John Kerry.”
If Nader was running a viable third party candidacy, then I could see why people might be attracted to him. However, he’s nothing but a media whore. He knows he was a spoiler in 2000 and reslishes the role again. That’s why he’s so eagerly taking help from the Republicans and the Reform party. I doubt he’ll get more than 1% or so of the vote this year. Nader’s national numbers are actually influenced by his larger percentages in solid Bush states like Alaska and Montana.
2000 could very well be argued as an “empty suit” or “tweedle dee/tweedle dum” race. 2004 isn’t that kind of race. There will be no 90 minute painfully dull debates on the lock box. John Kerry may not be perfect, but I don’t hold my candidates to such political purity tests as the Naderites do.
He’d be a fucking shitty president. I dealism is all well and good but I’m not stupid enough to think he could run the country. He’d be a liberal Bush, an incompetent idealogue with grandiose delusions.
What’s so great about Nader? I see quite a few very crucial differences between Bush and Kerry. Kerry has come out against ever unilaterally starting a war unless absolutely necessary. I understand that he voted for the current war, but you have to remember that the Bush administration was telling some pretty big whoppers about that. The way they told it, it WAS necessary. So maybe he got suckered in too easily, but still, the fact that Bush believes in war “because we can”, is a big difference in and of itself. Also Kerry favors environmental protections and alternate-energy research. He proposes reversing the tax cut that was given to the extremely wealthy. He wants to give incentives to businesses to keep jobs in the U.S. rather than sending them overseas. I’d like a candidate who’s further to the left, too - in fact, Kucinich was my preference. But to say Bush and Kerry are the same is just absurd.
Kerry and Bush are similar as they are both politicians and that they will both say what people want to hear in order to get elected. Nader is viewed as the “anti-politician” with his resale suits and lack of proper grooming. That’s why he can’t get into the debates. If he touched either Bush or Kerry they would both explode leaving only one candidate. Neither party wants to chance it.
At any rate, Nader can’t win and is a bit too nutty for my tastes.
I may vote for Nader, haven’t decided yet. I have decided, however, that I’ll will NOT vote for either Bush or Kerry. I’m in California. There’s no way that Kerry won’t win California so I can rest easy knowing that third party vote won’t be putting Bush in office.
Those who continue to vote for who they deem simply to be the lesser of two evils, rathher then DEMAND a better option, are part of the problem.
Lefties need to leave the centrist Democratic Party. Classic small government Republicans who have been complacent about letting their party get hijacked by the Religious Right need to leave the Republican Party. Such a movement would present us with at least four options. The remainders of the Republican and Democratic Parties would then be put in a position where they truly need to make an effort to read the pulse of the American People.
Kerry’s entire campaign could be summed up as “Well, I’m not Bush, you don’t want Bush, do you?” Sorry, Kerry, but I need a little more than that.
Nader doesn’t have the temperment for what I look for in a president. I don’t believe he thinks he’s ever been wrong in his life and does not seem the kind of guy that seeks out different perspectives. He’s right because he is Nader. He has nowhere to go for help with his legislative agenda. If Kerry wins, he can call up the House Minority Leader or the Speaker, depending who wins. Ditto for Bush. Who would Nader call?
Just what entitles him to a spot on the ballot, anyway? In the spring it was “I’m Nader and I’m running for president with the Green Party.” The Greens nominate someone else, so now he still gets a spot on the ballot just because he’s Ralph Nader? By that logic, why isn’t Howard Dean on the ballot?
In Virginia, he’s entitled to a spot on the ballot because a sufficient number of petitions naming Nader as a candidate and bearing a sufficient number of signatures was submitted prior to the statutory deadline to the Virginia State Board of Elections.
Ordinarily, I’d agree with you, but in this instance there’re great harms being done to our country that must be stopped. After we control the hemorraging, we can start focusing on our diet and exercise.
If I thought Kerry had no chance of winning anyway I’d vote for Nader. As long as there’s a possibility of removing Bush, however, I’ll vote for whoever’s most likely to do it.
Yeah, but when they were submitted, they were also supposed to be organized by Congressional district, and they weren’t. So maybe he’s not entitled to a ballot slot. I guess we’ll find out.
Yes, and the most effective way of demanding a better option is not to vote for 3rd parties in a closely contested election, it’s to push for some sort of run-off style voting rather than winner-takes-all. As long as the American system stays as it is now, there will never be more than two strong parties and they will both be grabbing for the centre. If you want to change it, you need to change the entire system.
I’m sorry for the hijack, but every time I see this misstatement, it drives me crazy and I just have to correct it. John Kerry did NOT vote for war. Neither did anyone else in Congress. They voted for the President to have the authority, should it become necessary. Kerry believed (and still does) that it’s the proper authority for a President to have at his disposal. However, he did not advocate going to war when and how Bush chose to do so. You may think it’s picking nits, but I think it’s a substantial distinction. [Cite]
So Nader has never criticized Bush? Kerry has done plenty of talking about his policies and philosophies; you seriously claim he has never done so? Is he supposed to say nothing at all about Bush, the guy he’s running against? I don’t get what it is you want here.
By the way, bienville’s statment is just dripping with irony, considering that Nader’s website is ALL ABOUT “I’m not Bush”. The lead article in the site:
