February 22, 2004
We'll try to control our excitement.
Ralph Nader is running for president as an independent.
And before this magpie gets all the comments about how the two parties are tweedledum & tweedledee, and about how Nader has every right to run, and how people in the US need a candidate who's not beholden to corporate power — we agree with you.
But we'd ask this: Has all the stuff that's happened under Dubya's administration been worth having Gore lose the 2000 election? No, Nader's candidacy wasn't the only reason the Democrats lost — the election was Gore's to lose and he let the presidency trickle through his fingers by running as Republican lite. But even with Gore's lackluster campaign, the fact remains that Nader's vote in Florida and a couple of other states made the difference between President Gore and Preznit Dubya. (Well, that and election fraud in Florida.)
This magpie certainly doesn't want to go through another election like the last one, or through another administration like the one that's just ending. As a friend of ours in North Carolina says, we'd vote for a yeller dawg if we thought it would beat Dubya. And Ralph Nader, whatever else you can say about him, isn't that yeller dawg. We wish he'd decided to sit 2004 out.
Posted by Magpie at February 22, 2004 03:17 PM | TrackBackIMAO Nader, the Greens, and anyone else who wants a non-demopublican government should be devoting their full efforts to campaigning for electoral reform. Under the current system, any third candidate will be either irrelevant or hurt their own cause, but a Democrat victory is barely worth celebrating.
Posted by: felice on February 23, 2004 04:02 AMWell said, Magpie. I often find myself conflicted by voting or doing what is right and in the best interests of the country and the world. Sadly, voting is not that simple. We have to be practical, and the fact remains that, while Gore ran a terrible campaign, and was a mediocrity, at best, Nader definitely harmed him significantly in Florida and New Hampshire. Was Gore a dream come true? Hell no!! However, Gore would not have allowed the possibility of Alaskan drilling or sold our country to the energy lobby or lied to start a fake war in Iraq or cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% at the expense of the rest of the country and our future or ... well, you get my point; the list goes on and on.
Are both parties corrupt and worthy of being overhauled? Yes. However, only a fool would believe there is zero difference between the two parties and we would be in the same place with a Democrat as President.
Let's get a D in the White House. Then, let's force for true reform. That is the correct way to do it.
Demopublicans? Ah, and here I always thought they were Repocrats.
Posted by: oldfallguy on February 23, 2004 11:56 AMGetting rid of Bush is not enough. The Democrats are just as beholden to corporate interests, or nearly so. It was refreshing to hear voices like Sharpton and Kucinich in the recent months.
Mainstream Democrats just can't speak directly and critically about these issues because they are themselves in hock.
This is why we should welcome Nader to the debate, if not to the ballot box.
Dean Terry
Alt7.com