Gore’s stances were actually pretty liberal - especially compared to Bush’s. Whether Gore was your first choice or not, anyone who perpetuates the position that they are two sides of the same coin is either misinformed or pushing their own agenda.
Regarding the SC - there is more than 1 or 2 SC judges who might be nominated. Bush also nominated over 100 federal court judges who, arguably, have as much power as the SC (often because the SC does not review their decisions). Federal Appellate Courts can often have more of an impact on your life than the SC.
For me, it’s issues such as these that make the decision easy. I would argue that even if you aren’t thrilled with whomever the democratic nominee may be, the greater evil is letting Bush stay in office.
Gore favors capital punishment, opposes gay marriage, supported increasing defense spending, said he’d investigate a missile defense system, supports NAFTA… I’m not sure he’s ‘pretty liberal’ compared to anybody. I think the amount of points on which he agreed with Bush (including those above) would at least preclude the use of the word ‘liberal.’
That said, given the current Democratic field I’m quite unlikely to vote Green (although since I live in NY, it’s really irrelevant). But whether I’ll be happy with my choice remains to be seen.
I meant to say that he was liberal compared to Bush (it is late and sort of misphrased that sentence).
True, his stances aren’t liberal on every position. But he’s pro-choice, an environmentalist, believes in social security, he’s for civil unions - and has other social and political liberal leanings.
Being in law school, I tend to judge how liberal a president is by the type of judges he/she did/would nominate. My belief is that Gore would have nominated pretty liberal judges. Again, this could be viewed as compared to Bush’s nominees (i.e. Pickering, Owens, and Estrada).
I understand that it was a comparison, cmason. I just dispute that a guy who agrees with Bush on so many issues is a liberal. Being pro-choice, pro-environment (whatever that happens to mean), and supporting social security are not liberal positions today, they’re completely standard Democratic positions.
Well, to you and me, as Democrats, we might not see those stances as very “liberal.” However, were you to ask some of the more conservative people, they might argue that such positions were liberal.
I’d argue that Gore was much different from Bush than he was similar. I would argue that, except it is 3:30 in the am and I need to get to sleep. Perhaps if this line of discussion is still going tomorrow I shall return with further responses.
cmason32, I agree with you that people underestimate the impact judicial appointments have on their lives. 4 years’ worth of ultra-conservative judicial appointments make a big difference. 8 years would be disastrous. Don’t like the Patriot Act? Well, the bench is where its provisions either gets enforced or ruled unconstitutional.
That’s true of course, but if you ask people who are conservative enough, just about any position will seem liberal. So I’m not sure that’s a good measuring stick.
I understand the motivations behind Nader and the “protest” votes and all that hassle. The two party system was making democrats and republicans lines pretty much alike at that time… Nader wasnt so far off… but then he didn’t figure Al Qaeda giving Bush a freedom from criticism ticket.
Democrats during elections have to run a fine line between scaring off less than conservative voters and leftie voters. So they couldn't court Nader voters too much at the risk of losing center position. Gore in other words looked more similar to Bush than he really was due to the election itself.
So is the divorce final yet, or are you and reality just in a trial separation at the moment? Marley23: Your claim that it is a “rather oversimplified historical analysis” to point out that Nader spoiled the 2000 election for Gore is completely absurd. It is indisputable that Nader swung Florida for Bush, and almost certainly swung New Hampshire too. Either one would have given Gore a majority of the electoral college. You can find the precise numbers in this thread: Nader Voters, still seen no difference?
Although I am a card-carrying Libertarian, I will vote GP this time around.
I consider the Democrats to be a much worse threat than the Republicans. If we can get the GP up to major-party status, they well destroy the Dems. Then Progressive forces will have a chance.
So if you’re going to vote Republican or third-party if Kucinich is anywhere on the Democratic ticket – will you do the same, if Dean is anywhere on the Democratic ticket?
Posted by minty green:
Please elaborate, minty. Dean is, by the standards of the Democratic Party, a centrist – a respectable patrician-born professional, and just one or two degrees to the left of Gore and the abominable “Democratic” Leadership Conference. At any rate, no one will ever say Dean is “just the same” as Bush. Kucinich is, by the same standards, a leftist – a man of humble working-class origins and unabashedly pro-labor, pro-unions, pro-national health care, etc., etc. – about as far left as you can get without being an actual socialist. Why wouldn’t a Dean-Kucinich ticket pick up both the centrist and leftist votes?
I don’t understand the “Nader was a spoiler” line. One can certainly argue that Nader voters were spoilers, since they knew exactly what the chances of a Nader win was. But Nader had as much right to run as anyone.
I guess blaming Nader instead of the voters is in keeping with typical lefty refusal to accept personal resonisiblillity.
Nader wasn’t the problem last time, and his “they’re all the same” rhetoric didn’t matter either. He’s just one guy. The problem was all the people who bought that line and voted for him anyway. They’re the ones whose views mattered then and matter now, not some fringe elements who get together for a toke and call themselves a political party. So will the Nader voters be more realistic this time? Considering that they now know that there really is a difference, then hell yes, at least for the most part.
Why not vote for Kucinich, it’s been asked? If you’re old enough to remember his mayoral tenure in Cleveland, which is his only relevant executive experience, then there’s no need to ask. Perhaps he’s matured somewhat since the days when nobody could tell him “Good morning” without him wanting to fight over it, but you can’t tell that from his public statements.
Dean attracts a lot of the same demographic that Nader did. Clark could be a strong candidate and has already been strongly endorsed by some folks who campaigned for Nader last time. Kucinich doesn’t have a shot and will probably drop out of the Democratic race to be endorsed and voted for by the crackpots who only vote Natural Law etc.
I voted for Nader last time because it was what my conscience told me to do and I truly felt that Bush did not have a legitimate chance to fairly win the election. I will never apologize for voting my conscience, but this time I, and tens of thousands of other Nader-voters, will vote Democratic for the list of obvious reasons (starting with #1: Bush must go).
Perhaps it will work out that way, but why does everybody keep saying Kucinich “doesn’t have a shot”? I know he’s trailing in most polls, but those don’t mean much this early in the race. Give me something more specific. What is it about Kucinich’s message that will alienate so many voters? Details, please, details!
Paul in Saudi, are you using the word “Progressive” the way it’s almost always used nowadays, to mean “left-liberal”? Or are you using it in the older (Teddy Roosevelt/John La Follette) sense, to mean upper-middle-class, non-ideological, professionalized good-government? Because I have never heard the word “progressive” used to describe Libertarians.
My exposure to Kucinich is not too extensive, but I can’t see the guy on a national ticket for one reason: he’s so unlikable. He comes across as a sour, bitter person. It’s hard to change your personality (as Mr Gore learned last time), and Americans generally will not vote for someone who is such a downer.
So it’s not really necessary to invoke his way left of center politics. But that would ensure his inability to get on a national ticket even if he had the personality of Reagan.
