Posted 4 years, 9 months ago around lunchtime by oso
Dave Winer made a good point on Harvard Law School’s weblog when he argued that rather than choosing a politican by narrowing down your choices, we should first discuss, clarify, and lay out our own policies and then choose a candidate who most closely resembles our own individual politics. That would be ideal. And in which case, I would undoubtedly vote for Ralph Nader. I think this is, partly, what Kevin is getting at in his comment.
Unfortunately, it is not realistic. It does not fit in with our system. It’s like nuclear disarmament - obviously the entire world benefits if every country agrees to completely destroy it’s nuclear weapons and development programs. But this will never happen because we act out of fear more than reason.
And I am deeply afraid that Bush will be re-elected this November and that a reason for his re-election will be “lost” votes to Nader. Howard Dean’s statement pretty much sums up my thoughts on Nader’s election bid.
OK…I have now had 3 Nader “discussions” in the span of 24 hours, and all ended with an agreement to disagree. I expect nothing more from anyone else who would read this. However, I still would like to make a few more comments because thats the kind of guy I am. First of all, Dean and Kerry and other Democrats asking Nader not to run is no different that Kerry or Gore asking Bush not to run. Seriously, Nader is no Democrat and thank god for that. They are political adversaries, but that being said, Dean has every right (and in fact an obligation) to tell his supporters not to vote for Nader. I would be shocked if he did anything less. Second, i would like to note that all of you who have had the pleasure of partaking in drunkin political conversations with myself can attest to the fact that I hate Bush with as much of a passion as anyone else. I still feel however, that if yuo compare his presidency to say Reagan and Nixon he is not much worse, if worse at all. All this talk about a Bush doomsday is all a little ridiculous. I’m sure we could all sit around and bring up countless law violations, evironmental travesties, war-mongering etc. by each of the last 5 Republican presidential candidates. Yes, Bush is bad, but so were all the others. So, I can completely understand why Democrats would not want Nader to run. Why would they want him to? But for that small minority that gives a shit about what he has to say, and think that Dean was a poor Nader impersonation by a man lacking an real ideas, he is a welcome addition to the debate. Not that they will let him debate the candidates, but at least to the national debate.
By the way, the Chris Matthews interview with Nader last night was the worst thing I have ever seen. If that exemplifies the way the media are going to treat Nader, then he has no shot of even making a dent in this election. Anyway, one final comment. Of the three people I had the Nader conversation with, two said that he is the closest candidate to their ideals. Go figure.
Here’s a better interview than the one last night. These are my excerpts:
“as you know, practically every Democrat who’s got vocal chords today is out there saying, “Ralph Nader, you’re making a mistake.”
NADER: Well, first of all, they’re wrong. I mean, I’ve seen the assertions that New Hampshire was lost, you know, because of my vote. I got more Republican votes than Democrat in New Hampshire in 2000.
So if CNN does a poll for my supporters, and breaks them down in the next few weeks, how many come from Republicans, how many come from independents, how many come from Democrats, very few are going to come from Democrats, because the out-of-power party members come back into the fold, as Senator [John] Kerry said quite correctly two days ago.”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/23/cnna.nader.woodruff/index.html
Agreed to disagree. You’re right - Nader is not a democrat nor a republican. It is also true that Nixon, Reagon, and Bush senior were very good at being almost as bad. (dubya by far tops the list in my opinion though)
So it’s a matter of what is most important to you. If it is sticking to your own beliefs and voting accordingly than you can make the symbolic gesture of voting for Nader. If it is selling out to replace Bush (who will, without a doubt, only become more conservative in his second term) with someone who is moderate rather than progressive, than the vote goes to the democratic nominee. I will gladly sell out.
I’m curious - what specifically did you not like about Dean or his campaign?
Steven Shaviro over at his blog http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/ made a good point about the Nader interview on Hardball: