Perhaps, but Americans are dead because of Nader takng Democrat votes.
You aren’t only throwing your vote away in some cases, but encouraging the really bad guys.
Who’s talking about the poor? If you’re middle class and you’re voting Republican, you’re voting against your own economic interest.
For example, right now the Republicans control the White House and congress and are running massive deficits. While there is some justification for short-term deficits, I think we can all agree that long-term structural deficits like these are unsustainable and will eventually lead to economic collapse.
The current deficit is primarily the result of Bush’s tax cuts. Rolling back Bush’s tax cuts for the top 1% of incomes would take a huge bite out of the deficit, postponing the crisis for many years and perhaps even giving us the breathing room for the economy to grow out of the deficit.
Selfish middle-class bastard that I am, I want to live in a strong economy with good jobs and good public services. I want a strong military, lots of cops on the streets, and good schools and universities for my kids. And if that means soaking the rich … then soak away, brother! I somehow fail to understand what “principle” is involved in giving the rich huge tax breaks at my expense. I guess I’m not altruistic enough … . :rolleyes:
Why, are there any?
Where? Nader isn’t a party, he’s a man, no longer part of a party that now sees him as a liability after he both failed to deliver funds AND got everyone pissed at the Greens.
The way that third parties get built is by having platforms that a large number of Americans can actually support. The only third parties and candidates out there are pie-in-the-sky candidates whose policies are far too extreme to make any sense in a national election. The only thing that voting for them will do is move the major party closest to their position farther away: now that they know they cannot depend on the fringe for votes, they move to the center.
National politics is like a tug of war. No matter how far left you are, pulling left benefits you: it moves the political agenda leftward (and then you can fight from there to go even farther), moves the ground of contention closer to you. However, letting go to pull in another direction is utterly useless unless you have enough other people behind you. And unless that happens, third parties work best as “issue parties” that eventually throw their support behind major candidates.
I doubt them getting some votes will make any difference at all. The only way that viable third parties ever make it is either by: a) having a very different election system than the one we have now or b) having platforms that large percentage of Americans can actually get behind (which is often in response to major events or shifts in opinion). I don’t see how voting for Moore or Nader this time around will make either of those any more likely. At all.
The only worthy candidate I see is Giuliani. I would have voted for Powell once, but I think he compromised his principles on Iraq. I wish there was a good woman high in the Republican ranks, but honestly, there is none that I see as being the “best person for the job”. Not Dole, not Whitman, not Snowe. There is a high-level executive at my company who I think would make a great president, but she is not running.
I would vote for Giuliani. Since he is not running, I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate, and for the Congressional/local elections.
Yes. For this reason, conventional wisdom has it that Governors and 1-term Senators make the most electable Presidential candidates.
Ironic, really: in the US, those with the most experience are least electable.
I would sincerely like to see Kerry win, but I’ll be damned if I’ll EVER donate money to any candidate. These guys have the financial support of two major parties, all of their benefactors, the special-interests that they both represent, and their own personal fortunes. The only thing that my money would do would be to save them some of their own money at the expense of my family. And that’s a bunch of crap.
Excuse the blood from my bleeding heart, but…
I found this comment very interesting. Given what Richard Nixon did during his term…
-
opened relations with the People’s Republic of China and helped them get into the UN.
-
instituted wage and prices controls to help control inflation.
-
the Clean Water and Air Act was passed during his administration.
-
persued detente with the Soviet Union.
I’m not trying to excuse Richard Nixon, but simply show that compared with the present republican administration, Richard Nixon seems very liberal.
Be honest: if you’re from New York, did you approve of Giuliani before 9/11? If you aren’t, do you know anything about his pre-9/11 record?
I’ve not studied it in excrutiating detail. His post-9/11 actions actually mean little to nothing to me. My understanding was that he was an effective administrator of a very troubled city, and was able to walk somewhat well through the landmines of the entrenched entitlement groups and political opportunists.
I greatly do not like his gun control record and gay rights record, but one or two-issue voting just doesn’t work IRL, regardless of the party. “Yeah, Hitler’s got some issues, but he’s a non-smoker!”
I would at least like to see candidates from some of the more prominent third parties included in the media debates. Even if all they do is shoot themselves in the foot by saying ridiculous things, they ought to have the same opportunities to express their views as the candidates from the mainstream parties.
I understand there is a difference between a party and a candidate. I still advocate throwing your vote away if you can’t find common ground of a compelling nature between yourself and one of the major candidates. I don’t subscribe to the “right” and “left” dichotomy in US politics. I don’t believe a tug-o-war is a good model because I think there are more than two orientations. When possible I jump ship and get behind anyone who is willing to add their dimension to the pull-fest. I’m a fan of options, generally because I usually hate the two I’m given and am all for encouraging as many new viewpoints as possible whenever possible.
Enjoy,
Steven
Speaking as a New Yorker… Work here, don’t live in the city, might move in if I get an apartment…
Guliani did the impossible. Created pride in a city that was going to hell. Got the mob out of the fishmarket. Cleaned up freaking Times Square.
And I know how he did it. It’s all in the book he wrote. Basically, he designed and implemented metrics, and then improved on the failed areas.
He has one specific issue, and that’s letting his religious opinion override personal freedoms, but… well, frankly, that gets dampened out by people around him.
He’s a hard nosed bastard and a hell of a leader.
Giuliani? Could be a great politican if he could ever work with anyone. He needs to become less autocratic even for an executive post. On the other hand, I’ve heard his name bandied about for a major court position, and that might be ideal for him.
President? Well, he’d be better suited for it than Senator, that’s for sure!
Now there’s something I would disagree with should it ever be seriously put forward by any Administration. For the same reason I’ve disagreed with very strongly to suggestions that Mario Cuomo, Bill Clinton, and Jesse Jackson be appointed to the Supreme Court: I’m no expert on the backgrounds of the past SC appointees, but isn’t there an implicit requirement of being an actual sitting judge, or even a Constitutional and Historical Scholar of some sort?
Abner Louima and the family of Amadou Diallo might disagree, considering his handling of police abuse cases. The way he embarrassed the city with his mistress and his handling of his divorce case only added to the “it’s about time he left” feeling that was so prevalent up to 9/10. Have all of you forgotten everything but 9/11?
I broke my long-standing policy of not reading much of what elucidator posts, and it paid off - big time.
This has got to be the single most ridiculous statement ever made in defense of Kerry’s candidacy.
“Kerry for President - when you consider how stupid he is, his votes make sense!”
If you can fit it on a bumper sticker, I’ll take two.
Regards,
Shodan
Keep in mind that “stupid” in this context means “believes what Bush says.” There definitely would be something ridiculous about your putting that on your car…
Daniel
I’ll gladly put together a “Vote Kerry – He Won’t Let Bush Lie Again” bumper sticker if anyone’s interested.
Shodan? Hello? Yoo-hoo…
I am, of course, utterly bereft to hear that friend Shodan, the very model of candor and reason, finds my posts so distasteful that it requires a policy of careful avoidance. Yet, he manages to find something he can use, nestled in context. Did he use a dowsing rod to find that one sentence without soiling the purity of his mind?
But this offers an opportunity for friend Shodan to clarify some previous remarks:
to witless:
In a single paragraph! Gays in the military are a danger to national security. Clinton sold secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions, which is to say, treason.
Called upon to back up these claims, friend Shodan is far too busy, cannot be bothered, moving briskly along.
I fear delicacy eludes me, my patience is worn.
Shodan, you are lying sack of shit. You degrade your own arguments with your underhanded tactics and ad hominem slurs, as well as your craven refusal to answer when challenged.
Your contempt for me is a badge of honor. Thank you.
UnaCite:
Agreed, but how about the NY State Court of Appeals? Is he sufficiently qualified for that? Then, if he does well there, perhaps a Fed appointment down the line…