(I’m posting this partly because I’d like to create a thread that all the third party vs. Kerry arguments can be consolidated on. Folks who are anti-Green, please read this post before you tell me that “Cobb can’t win.”)
There are two candidates I’m seriously considering voting for, David Cobb (the Green Party candidate) and John Kerry.
Reasons to vote for Kerry:
- Kery would almost certainly refund UNFPA and get rid of the global gag rule. This would have a positive effect on the lives of tens of thousands of poor women worldwide – it seems likely that there are many women who will be more likely to live to 2008 if Kerry’s in the White House.
On that level, it makes a difference who is elected president in 2004.
- Kerry seems more competent than Bush, and so might succeed in producing less carnage and tragedy in Iraq.
- There’s a fairly high chance that whoever wins the 2004 election will get to appoint at least one Supreme Court justice, and perhaps more. Regarding many issues that are important to me, not least of which is abortion, who is on the Supreme Court does make a difference.
- Kerry’s plan to make health insurance more affordable seems to me to be worth trying, and could make a very large difference in my life.
- There doesn’t seem to be much energy in the third-party movement this election, making voting green less attractive than it was in 2000. (What’s the point of participating in a boycott if I’m almost the only one doing so?)
Reasons to vote for Cobb.
- Cobb is as good or better than Kerry on virtually every issue I care about.
- There’s a woman on the ticket, which, all else being equal, I’d prefer to having no women on the ticket. (Of course, it would be better yet, all else being equal, for a woman to be at the top of the ticket.)
- In the long run, trying to grow a progressive movement in this country is more important than trying to win any particular election. And third parties can be useful progressive forces even without winning any elections.
- If progressives automatically vote for the Democrat, then why should Democrats care what we think?
- Kerry has been a back-stabber on gay rights, supporting don’t-ask-don’t-tell and speaking out for homophobic anti-marriage-equality measures in Massachusetts and elsewhere. (I know he opposes the Federal anti-gay-marriage amendment, but since the Federal amendment had no chance of passing, that’s not very meaningful. When push comes to shove, regarding an amendment in Massachusetts that matters much more right now, Kerry sides with the homophobes).
- There is next to no chance that my vote will make the difference between Bush and Kerry.
So what will I do? I don’t know. Four years ago I voted for Nader. I’m still not sure if that decision was right or wrong.
Right now, what I’m planning to do is wait until November 1st to decide. If the election looks close at that point – both in Oregon and nationwide – then I’ll vote for Kerry. Otherwise, Cobb.
I like your reasoning. I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000 for very much the same reasons you laid out for Cobb. California is not expected to be close at all — and yet, I promised myself that I would vote Democratic this year no matter what.
On the other hand, if there is a Green in Florida or Ohio who is waffling, I’ll make a deal: you promise to vote for Kerry, and I promise to vote for Cobb or Nader here in safe Kerry California.
I may just have broken federal law with that proposal.
Unless it looks like a very clear blow-out for Kerry, I personally would recommend voting for Kerry. My understanding is that the Greens have been intentionally quiet in Oregon because they are pursuing a strategy of trying to run up their percentages in non-swing states, rather than trying to influence the Bush-Kerry outcome.
Furthermore, I think that this election represents a chance to repudiate Bush. I think that that repudiation will be more effective the larger Kerry’s plurality or (dare I say it) majority is in the popular vote.
I voted traded last time around. This time I probably won’t, but I would recommend it for anyone who is in a swing state and is fence sitting on Cobb vs. Kerry. Convince someone in California or New York or Utah to vote Cobb, but vote for Kerry yourself. If, on the other hand, you are definitely not voting for Kerry, I’d definitely suggest Cobb over Nader, although the Socialists (Walt Brown) and the Peace and Freedom party (Leonard Peltier) are good too (and they also both have women in the v-p slot).
I’ll make my final decision between Cobb/LaMarche and Nader/Camejo. Under no circumstances will I vote for Kerry or Bush. None. Zip. Nada.
A lot of mud is being flung between the Cobb and Nader camps at the moment, and I have no idea which side to believe. But I still won’t vote Democrat. However little I might believe the first two camps, I believe in the last a hell of a lot less.
Ampersand, you said: “In the long run, trying to grow a progressive movement in this country is more important than trying to win any particular election.”
I have two issues with this argument.
The first is, “in the long run.” Frankly, I don’t care about “the long run.” I care about the people who will be disadvantaged in the short run, in the next four years, by a Bush presidency. I think it’s unconscionable to tell the people who will suffer and die–women without access to sexual health services, for instance–during four more years of Bush that their suffering matters less than the hope (not certainty, or even probability, but hope) of better things for future generations.
Second, there are ways to grow a progressive movement without running Green *presidential* candidates to run against the Democratic *presidential* candidates. Kerry is undoubtedly significantly better than Bush–he’s a genuine liberal, even if he’s not as far left as some of us would like. In fact, I would say that Kerry is as liberal a candidate as can possibly be elected in this country at this time. So why not support Kerry in the national election while supporting progressive Dems and Greens in local elections, thus having the best of both worlds? Movements–successful movements–have to be bottom up, not top down, after all. The right has tons of grassroots support for local wingnut candidates. We should do the same, through organizations such as Democracy for America and similar ones. This way, while voting for Kerry because he’s our best option right now, we can start to change the whole political culture from the bottom up.
And finally, Ampersand, I do not think either Nader or Cobb or whoever can be compared to Debs, because when people speak of Nader (which is seldom) or of Cobb (even more seldom), they do not speak of the issues they bring up. Rather, people speak of Nader and Cobb in terms of the effect they may have on the Kerry vs. Bush contest. Cobb’s candidacy is not bringing issues to the table–or if it is, no one’s talking about them. Cobb voters may be “making a statement,” but it’s a statement that no one’s listening to, and that may give us four more Bush years. We can make that statement in a different way–support for progressives in local elections, as well as little-known House races–while still putting Kerry in office.
If your state is solid red or solid blue, then I’d encourage you to vote for Cobb (because then your “statement,” even if it’s being ignored, won’t do any harm), but otherwise not.
While I understand the importance of getting rid of the current administration, there is something terribly wrong and hopeless about the conventional logic which keeps the corrupt and dysfuncional two-party system in place. Voting for the alternative, in defiance of the political oligopoly, seems the better course to me.
Another reason to vote for Kerry–taxes and budget. Bush will slash taxes for the rich again. Kerry won’t. As someone whose job and whose partner’s job rely somewhat on federal tax money, my ass is on the line.
And, as a Texan, I can assure you that intra-party politicking is also a way to shove the party leftward. Ask good ol’ LBJ.
The first is, “in the long run.” Frankly, I don’t care about “the long run.” I care about the people who will be disadvantaged in the short run, in the next four years, by a Bush presidency.
People like you say this every damn election, Linnet. Excuse me if I’m not interested in hearing it again, particularly since the Democrats are in no small way responsible for the condition of the folk you refer to.
I think it’s unconscionable to tell the people who will suffer and die–women without access to sexual health services, for instance–during four more years of Bush that their suffering matters less than the hope (not certainty, or even probability, but hope) of better things for future generations.
See above. Don’t guilt-monger me. I hate guilt-mongering. And I hate double standards. Don’t hold me to a higher standard of conduct when I have almost no power –beyond the power to flip the bird in the direction of the oligarchs running this country– than you hold the powerful themselves to. It is emphatically NOT appreciated, Linnet.
…people speak of Nader and Cobb in terms of the effect they may have on the Kerry vs. Bush contest…
You are absolutely correct about this, Linnet. The reason that this is the case is that the Dems made a conscious decision to shift blame for the failure and, at the same time, to make sure that none of the issues that Nader spoke on gets any coverage. And, to me, that is even more of a reason to vote minor party. I don’t want to reward the Dems for the slick way in which they diverted attention from progressive issues.
I also think that voting for the short term is what has gotten us to where we are today. There has not been a large enough chunk of voters (mmm, good) who have voted using long term strategy over the past 5 decades. Maybe it’s time to start.
The point of minor parties running presidential candidates is to bring attention to their existence & energy to their local races.
But I like your post. It seems to me to lay a good foundation on which a debate about strategy and reasoning (rather than a debate about blame or a holier than thou talking past) can be built.
I am inclined to think that if half the effort that is going into these third party efforts went back into getting progressive candidates elected *as Democrats*, then we would see much more rapid progress being made.
when it comes to large-scale politics and national economy, four years *is* a pretty long run — at least, in my eyes it seems long. the changes wrought over most any presidential term lately have been fairly large-scale, i’d say. so if one doesn’t care about the “long run”, why bother voting at all? if the “long run” doesn’t matter, what precisely _does_, in the life of a nation?
…quoth N.N., who’s not a citizen and thus can’t vote…
…although i guess i *could* apply for naturalization if i felt like going through that hassle. and if i didn’t mind the ceremony requiring me to semi-perjure myself to get that passport…
…but even if i did that, i’m a european-style welfare-state social democrat. i couldn’t even vote for the lesser of two evils; i, too, see them both as equally evil, and there’s effectively *no* candidate or party here that well matches my politics. so why bother with the hassle…?
Amanda, I spent countless hours campaigning for the progressive-dem candidate for governer last cycle, so much that I even travelled out of town with the candidate and her staff to campaign for them. (That’s far more effort than I spent even on the Nader campaign). As far as I can tell, it was all for nothing.
No organization was built that could outlast the election; and since all the mainstream dems said the same thing (“we love Beverly, and she’s right on the issues, but we have to vote for a moderate candidate who can win”) I don’t think we had any real impact on the race.
Nothing in my experience leads me to believe that, at the level of effort I’m willing to volunteer, working for prog-dem candidates who can’t win (Kucinich, anyone?) is a better strategy than working for third-party candidates who can’t win. At least if I support the Green Party, I’m supporting something that might continue existing beyond a paricular candidate or election.
I can’t for the death of me see the appeal of Nader, but then, I am a much different Liberal than most of the other posters here in the comments. Cobbs seems like a more reasonable candidate.
The only counter-argument I will present against not voting for Kerry is: The Supreme Court.
In my oppinion, that’s the major reason for voting for Kerry, even if you don’t like him. – is there honestly anyone here who doesn’t belive that there is a difference between the kind of people Bush will appoint and the kind of people Kerry will appoint?
Do you Americans need judges who are against abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action etc.?
I would suggest working for building the Green party up from the roots upwards – no party, except totalitarian parties, has ever been build from the top down.
People like you say this every damn election, Linnet.
You want to know what’s not appreciated, Alsis? Making generalizations about “people like me.” So cut it out.
I’m well aware of the fact that the Dems have been responsible for a lot of horrible things. I’m also aware that some progressive Democrats have done amazing things, and I’m arguing that voting to punish the party rather than to get results is useless.
See above. Don’t guilt-monger me. I hate guilt-mongering. And I hate double standards. Don’t hold me to a higher standard of conduct when I have almost no power –beyond the power to flip the bird in the direction of the oligarchs running this country– than you hold the powerful themselves to. It is emphatically NOT appreciated, Linnet.
Pointing out facts isn’t guilt-mongering. It’s a fact that more people will die if Bush wins. Period. You can feel guilty about that, or not, as you choose.
And how am I holding you to a higher standard than anyone? I’m not saying that the current situation is your fault rather than the fault of those who have created it. It’s their fault. What I’m saying is that I don’t care whose fault it is. I care about fixing it, and if that means using the two-party system, so be it.
I also think that voting for the short term is what has gotten us to where we are today. There has not been a large enough chunk of voters (mmm, good) who have voted using long term strategy over the past 5 decades. Maybe it’s time to start.
Maybe. But I think we have to consider, Jake, how many people are going to vote with us. Many liberals are closer to Kerry’s beliefs than Nader’s or Cobb’s. I think we can’t rely on lots of people voting for a long-term progressive agenda before we have lots of people who actually agree with said agenda, rather than a moderately liberal one.
And again, the short-term consequences for voting long-term in a presidential election are pretty harsh for a lot of people all around the world. I don’t see why we can’t vote short-term for the president while voting long-term for state and local officials.
I recognize that the point of third-party candidates is to energize the race, but the thing is that I don’t think it’s possible in our current system for that to happen on a national level. I don’t think Nader or Cobb are energizing the race at all. And yes, this is the Democratic Party’s fault for blaming Nader for “stealing” “their” votes, and making the issue about electoral politics rather than actual policies.
The question isn’t “who do we blame?” or “who do we punish?” but “what on earth are we going to do about it?” Which is a tough question, but one thing I think is important is not to give up on state and local elections. That’s a big part of how the right-wingers do it, after all.
Linnet,
If your beliefs are closer to Kerry than to Cobb or Nader, then you should vote for Kerry. The thing is that you are trying to get voters like me, voters who are much closer to Cobb/Nader than to Kerry, to vote for Kerry. Given the beliefs of the voters you are trying to convert, what are the benefits for voting for Kerry? Can they outweigh the negatives that you will hear from Alsis & myself?
The short term consequences of voting for Kerry are pretty harsh too. The long term consequences of voting for either will grievously injure far more people than another 4 years of Bush will. Or so I think.
I do believe that Nader energized the local Greens in ’04. He certainly isn’t this year, but he is not running as a Green and he is not a Green. Unless you are involved in your local Green party and unless you have contact with other locals, it’s near impossible to tell whether Cobb has energized any local campaigns. I don’t claim to know.
I think that I actually prefer McCain as president to Kerry. Put your tongue back in. The reason is that McCain is actually for campaign finance reform. I believe that CFR may be the single most important thing that we can do for our future.
This is all disjointed, but maybe I’ll get it more coherent later.
I beg your pardon, Linnet. Like a lot of people, I’m actually pretty close to becoming one of the unfortunate folk who have fallen into the cracks in this country. What’s the old saying ? “One paycheck away from the streets ?” Or one nasty chronic illness… ? One sick relative away… ? Take your pick. There are millions of people like me, and I take an exceedingly dim view of the notion that I’m not allowed to attempt putting the brakes on my downward slide in some manner you don’t approve of.
The Democrats have either actively participated in or stood by silently as the social safety net has been unravelled over the last three decades or so. And THAT’S a fact. Period.
More people will die regardless of which Skull and Bones asshole gets elected. You are holding me to a higher standard by demanding my absolute loyalty to a crowd of power-brokers who have no loyalty whatsoever to me. PERIOD. And who will move heaven and earth to make sure the duopoly stays intact.
PERIOD.
How are you being held to a higher standard than anyone else? Linnet argues why Kerry is a better choice for everyone, so everyone is held to the same standard (ok, those of us who can’t vote at the US elections aren’t).
You know what kills me? Some Democrats with distasteful policies do okay on the local or state level (choice, the DP, the war, racial profiling, welfare “reform”, ugh), and then make it to the House or the Senate, where the often continue their support of such policies.
I’m not saying don’t vote Dem. Vote for whom you feel reprsents your interests. Or hold your nose and vote for whom you feel will be better than GWB (wait, let me be clear–Kerry. I mean, a moldy sofa is better than GWB at this point).
I am saying that we need to start raising more hell with the people who claim to represent us. We have a huge stake in what goes on in Congress and in our State Houses. If the ranks representing us promote progressive policies, if they fight for us instead of rolling over and playing dead, I think we’ll have a good chunk of the battle won. We need to let them know if we approve of their votes on a particular issue. We need to contact them with our concerns regularly. And if they (continue) to flout them, we have to let them know we are seriously considering another candidate and why. They get enough of that, they start to take notice.
Kris, what part of this don’t you understand:
You are holding me to a higher standard by demanding my absolute loyalty to a crowd of power-brokers who have no loyalty whatsoever to me. PERIOD.
I’m not saying the average voter is a power-broker, I’m saying that the people who run the Party machine and who have offered up Kerry for my approval are. They have sold out my interests repeatedly to line their own pockets and to consolidate their own place up near the top of the food chain. I despise them.
Sadly, arguements like this have moved me quite solidly into the doomsayers camp.
and that not doomsayers “a vote for nader is a vote for bush” type doomsaying. I mean “holy crap, we’re all gonna die! America is on the verge of collapse the likes of which haven’t been seen since the fall of Constantinople.”
If Bush gets elected, it’s going to get very, very ugly very quickly.
it will send a message to the Republicans that, yes, in fact, they CAN get away with anything, no matter how crazy, evil, ill thought out, or otherwise Cobra-commander-esque their schemes may be, the voting population is either too stupid, to afraid, or too disorganized to care.
it will tell Democrats that it doesn’t matter how incredibly wrong their opponents are, they have to actually sell something that EVERYONE wants in order to win, and convincing everyone that things us liberals tend to like (welfare, legitimate public schools, the arts, women’s rights, and so on) becomes much more difficult with an opponent who only has to say women’s rights/public schools/whatever is unamerican, or “lets the terrorists win” or god doesn’t like it, or whatever. ultimately, it’ll lead to a harder swing to the right, making Joe Leiberman look like a moderate, trying to devour votes from the republican voting block.
you’d think that would open a way for a Third party. nope. the republicans can only keep this charade up as long as they maintain the idea of a false duality, so they’ll enact a series of changes to electoral law that makes it much harder for people who don’t already have elected officals to get on the ballot. remember how Jeb Bush just recently put Nader on the ballot in florida, even though deadlines had been missed making it a violation of electoral law? like that, but in reverse.
this begins a downward spiral of death and destruction: polution overruns everything, bush, his successor (whomever he might be) and down the line declare war on syria, Iran, The Phillipines, and France. France and the EU declare war on us, people fight and die, until the US is forced to withdraw from the fight after the people: hungry, tired, frustrated, and sick of the draft, take to the streets in a bloody coup.
and I, being a white, male, college educated jew, would be among the first killed, as they assume that I must be a Neo-con.
so, because I don’t want my naked corpse flayed and dragged through the streets by cheering crowds in the peasant rebellions of 2021, I am voting for Kerry.
well, that, and I live in Missouri. swing state and all.
I think I’m with MM on this one:
from michael moore
9/20/04
Dear Friends,
Enough of the handwringing! Enough of the doomsaying! Do I have to come there and personally calm you down? Stop with all the defeatism, OK? Bush IS a goner — IF we all just quit our whining and bellyaching and stop shaking like a bunch of nervous ninnies. Geez, this is embarrassing! The Republicans are laughing at us. Do you ever see them cry, “Oh, it’s all over! We are finished! Bush can’t win! Waaaaaa!”
Hell no. It’s never over for them until the last ballot is shredded. They are never finished — they just keeping moving forward like sharks that never sleep, always pushing, pulling, kicking, blocking, lying.
They are relentless and that is why we secretly admire them — they just simply never, ever give up. Only 30% of the country calls itself “Republican,” yet the Republicans own it all — the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and the majority of the governorships. How do you think they’ve been able to pull that off considering they are a minority? It’s because they eat you and me and every other liberal for breakfast and then spend the rest of the day wreaking havoc on the planet.
Look at us — what a bunch of crybabies. Bush gets a bounce after his convention and you would have thought the Germans had run through Poland again. The Bushies are coming, the Bushies are coming! Yes, they caught Kerry asleep on the Swift Boat thing. Yes, they found the frequency in Dan Rather and ran with it. Suddenly it’s like, “THE END IS NEAR! THE SKY IS FALLING!”
No, it is not. If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can’t win… Dammit, of COURSE he’s a lousy candidate — he’s a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don’t run — and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.
Yes, OF COURSE any of us would have run a better, smarter, kick-ass campaign. Of course we would have smacked each and every one of those phony swifty boaty bastards down. But WE are not running for president — Kerry is. So quit complaining and work with what we have. Oprah just gave 300 women a… Pontiac! Did you see any of them frowning and moaning and screaming, “Oh God, NOT a friggin’ Pontiac!” Of course not, they were happy. The Pontiacs all had four wheels, an engine and a gas pedal. You want more than that, well, I can’t help you. I had a Pontiac once and it lasted a good year. And it was a VERY good year.
My friends, it is time for a reality check.
1. The polls are wrong. They are all over the map like diarrhea. On Friday, one poll had Bush 13 points ahead — and another poll had them both tied. There are three reasons why the polls are b.s.: One, they are polling “likely voters.” “Likely” means those who have consistently voted in the past few elections. So that cuts out young people who are voting for the first time and a ton of non-voters who are definitely going to vote in THIS election. Second, they are not polling people who use their cell phone as their primary phone. Again, that means they are not talking to young people. Finally, most of the polls are weighted with too many Republicans, as pollster John Zogby revealed last week. You are being snookered if you believe any of these polls.
2. Kerry has brought in the Clinton A-team. Instead of shunning Clinton (as Gore did), Kerry has decided to not make that mistake.
3. Traveling around the country, as I’ve been doing, I gotta tell ya, there is a hell of a lot of unrest out there. Much of it is not being captured by the mainstream press. But it is simmering and it is real. Do not let those well-produced Bush rallies of angry white people scare you. Turn off the TV! (Except Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers — everything else is just a sugar-coated lie).
4. Conventional wisdom says if the election is decided on “9/11” (the fear of terrorism), Bush wins. But if it is decided on the job we are doing in Iraq, then Bush loses. And folks, that “job,” you might have noticed, has descended into the third level of a hell we used to call Vietnam. There is no way out. It is a full-blown mess of a quagmire and the body bags will sadly only mount higher. Regardless of what Kerry meant by his original war vote, he ain’t the one who sent those kids to their deaths — and Mr. and Mrs. Middle America knows it. Had Bush bothered to show up when he was in the “service” he might have somewhat of a clue as to how to recognize an immoral war that cannot be “won.” All he has delivered to Iraq was that plasticized turkey last Thanksgiving. It is this failure of monumental proportions that is going to cook his goose come this November.
So, do not despair. All is not over. Far from it. The Bush people need you to believe that it is over. They need you to slump back into your easy chair and feel that sick pain in your gut as you contemplate another four years of George W. Bush. They need you to wish we had a candidate who didn’t windsurf and who was just as smart as we were when WE knew Bush was lying about WMD and Saddam planning 9/11. It’s like Karl Rove is hypnotizing you — “Kerry voted for the war…Kerry voted for the war…Kerrrrrryyy vooootted fooooor theeee warrrrrrrrrr…”
Yes…Yes…Yesssss….He did! HE DID! No sense in fighting now…what I need is sleep…sleeep…sleeeeeeppppp…
WAKE UP! The majority are with us! More than half of all Americans are pro-choice, want stronger environmental laws, are appalled that assault weapons are back on the street — and 54% now believe the war is wrong. YOU DON’T EVEN HAVE TO CONVINCE THEM OF ANY OF THIS — YOU JUST HAVE TO GIVE THEM A RAY OF HOPE AND A RIDE TO THE POLLS. CAN YOU DO THAT? WILL YOU DO THAT?
Just for me, please? Buck up. The country is almost back in our hands. Not another negative word until Nov. 3rd! Then you can bitch all you want about how you wish Kerry was still that long-haired kid who once had the courage to stand up for something. Personally, I think that kid is still inside him. Instead of the wailing and gnashing of your teeth, why not hold out a hand to him and help the inner soldier/protester come out and defeat the forces of evil we now so desperately face. Do we have any other choice?
Yours,
Michael Moore
Amp, I see what you’re saying, but think about it this way–progressive Democrats running as progressives may not win, but they have a better shot than progressives in third parties, even if marginally.
More importantly, if this is about opening up the dialogue to more progressive voices, then even losing Democrats get a louder microphone than 3rd party candidates. And they get the ear of the party leaders. Who do you think has a better shot of influencing policy–Nader of Kuchinich?
I don’t like Kerry’s views on gay marriage, but I honestly think the whole thing caught him by surprise. He’s playing it safe, being a politician. Anyone that runs to win has to do that. I have a funny feeling that the second support for gay marriage starts approaching half of Democratic voters, then we will see Kerry soften up really quickly–he’s already soft on the issue. It kind of reminds me of Kennedy and civil rights.
I’ve haven’t lived anywhere where my vote mattered in a presidential election for the past 20 years. For example, in 2000 & ’96, I voted in Okiedom where there was never any doubt that the GOPricks–Dole, then Dumber–would carry the state. I voted for Nader both times.
This year, in New Mexico, which is a so-called ‘battleground’ state, there are no fewer than 40 phenomenally persuasive reasons why Bush MUST go and why I am working for Kerry: Bush’s Cabinet, the PNAC, and the GOPhive on the SCROTUS.
Ridding the nation of this plague is the most important task since World War II…
Kucinich had his shot, Amanda. He got exactly nowhere with the big boys at the top, as far as I can tell. One ten-minute speech at the DNC does not “influence” make. :( I deeply regret throwing money at the guy when I could’ve been giving it to the Greens or to Nader. Talk about a waste of energy !
France and the EU declare war on us, and the US has to withdraw because the casualty count gets too high?
France barely has the gumption to fight the Ivory Coast, and the EU combined (Britain excepted) has the military strength of – maybe – the Texas National Guard. (I’d still put my money on Texas.)
Barry, you might as well vote Green. The Democratic party is undergoing meltdown; all actual governing is going to be done from the Republican side of the fence until the progressive/liberal side gets it together, decides what their real priorities are, and reforms the party. A Kerry presidency would be the worst thing for the Dems – it would make it seem like waffling and triangulating are viable long-term strategies. They aren’t.
Jake: “The short term consequences of voting for Kerry are pretty harsh too. The long term consequences of voting for either will grievously injure far more people than another 4 years of Bush will. Or so I think.” You are right on.
Some seem to think Sen. Kerry’s bad press is b/c of the mainstream media and Fox. But, looking at his record and talking to people who have dealt with his staff, Sen. Kerry’s problem is not his bad press, it’s the press of his own making. You can’t talk your way out of 20 years of facilitating instead of leading. A longtime Senator cannot be elected President. Their record will always be destroyed. It is even worse if you have not done anything progressive or regressive during your longtime Senate career. In 20 years in the Senate his only claim to fame is facilitator. That claim is good if it is for the people, but when the inside-the-beltway rumor is that he makes concessions in order to get home at night, that is not someone I want running my country.
I am a staunch independant, less government intrusion in my life is what I favor in a candiate. President Bush and Senator Kerry’s record signify the extreme in government intrusion.
The problem with President Bush is that we have a Republican Congress who will allow him to sell our soul and buy our demise on credit, for “party loyalty”. The economy is growing — my ass — when I get a 400 Billion dollar visa card, I am sure my economy would also look like it was growing.
A Democrat President would be better because absolutely nothing will get done in four years. So, my recommendation, if you are going to vote for Kerry then vote conservative Republican for Congress. At least the two parties may spend their time prosecuting President Kerry for war crimes instead of regulating our family , creating a larger welfare class, increasing social engineering programs that absolve people of personal responsibility and don’t work or going to war.
Maybe I a little too cynical of the process. Boy do we need campaign finance reform.
Folks, you might want to consider putting effort into progressive issue-oriented organizations that do electoral work. Those stick around after the election, and they provide a known source of volunteer power and PAC money and donation shilling ONLY for the candidates in line with their views. Therefore, these have some potential for influence of the major parties. Emily’s List has had a significant impact on the Dem party. I have volunteered for the local NARAL and lgbt organizations. If the unions could inspire their members to work for election of those supporting pocketbook issues, and convince members to vote pocketbook instead of NRA or no-gay-marriage, unions, although only 10% of the voting-age public, could have greater impact than currently. The key is to be selective in handing out goodies, and GOTV labor is a goodie. Also, state level races can be important, both in themselves and as incubators for young progressive politicians.
It is true that a specific candidate’s campaign usually shrivels up – Dean seems to be the exception.
I have never been crazy about third parties, because they don’t seem to have the grassroots personnel, at least in the Midwest. But then, I live in a battleground state, and have no intention of voting for the Greens, Libertarians, Natural Law Party (knuckledraggers), or others.
NancyP, I appreciate your suggestion. (Hell, I appreciate everyone here even if their opinions bug me because at least you all demonstrably give a damn about SOMETHING. That’s puts you well above most of the people around me IRL.) But I can tell you as a long-standing AFSCME member that it’s just not that simple. When I have a bit more time, I’ll try and come back to tell you why it’s not. :(
Good point, Nancy. I have been directing some of my usual (unfortunately meager, due to salary considerations) charity money towards Democrats running in close races, but they are not really the ones setting the liberal agenda. Outside groups like the Christian Coalition have more to do with the rightward drift of our politics than anything else. The left can imitate that model to a large degree, I think. Kerry is more emboldened to be liberal than he might have been without groups like MoveOn to support him.
Alsis, I appreciate your frustration, but you knew that Kuchinich wasn’t going to win. But he, unlike Nader, *did* get 10 minutes of TV time. More importantly, he has a seat at the table when Kerry wins and they start divvying up the spoils. The “President” isn’t just the person we vote for. It’s the 1,500 people he drags to D.C. with him.
I wish I had your optimism, Amanda. Kucinich’s delegates weren’t even permitted to display scarves or buttons with the word “Peace” while they were at the DNC. And don’t get even me started on the damn “protest pens.” I don’t understand why I should believe that a man who would do this sort of thing to his own base now will be less inclined to cut them dead AFTER he’s “safely” in office for four years. I. Just. Don’t. Believe. It.
Well, Bush has filled me with “optimism”.
Seriously, though, if my property taxes go up one more time to cover slashed federal funding, I’m going to the poorhouse, so Kerry it is.
For a laugh, here’s a quote from catch.com that’s relevant.
“You live in a town without cable. Two people are throwing Super Bowl parties. Both have TV’s that use rabbit ears for reception. Do you go to the guy’s house who just leaves them pointed in the same direction all the time and insists the picture is fine (even though it isn’t) or do you go to the other guy’s house who adjusts the rabbit ears until the picture is the best that it can possibly be?
Oh, and the first guy only has O’Doul’s in the fridge.”
In this story, I’m the person who hates superbowl parties and decides to walk to the next town over, figuring that possibly dying along the way couldn’t be anymore boring than watching some moronic overgrown fratboy jerk a couple of rabbit ears around. :p
Good analogy Amanda. I guess it is like finding what the people really want to hear. Of course that has nothing to do with what I would actually do when I get into office. One poster said — better the devil you don’t know than the devil you do. Right now I am truely afraid of what John Kerry would do if he got into office.
The good thing is that he is for income redistribution. The problem is that the federal government’s make-up requires that the tax income it receives is redistributed to the party cronies. So I fear that Kerry will be just another tax the middle class and give to Heinz. How about some real proposals that will benefit the working class. One I do like is government incentives to keep “defense infrastructure” manufacturing here in the U.S. Manufacturing jobs are not just about the stock price. It is also about being able to manufacture items for our national defense, if necessary.
We give so much money away to other countries to protect our manufacturing interests overseas that we could completely fund national “Cadillac” style healthcare. We as taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of big Corporations. If they manufactured here, security would not be an issue (we could board the country up like ancient China) and that money would be freed up. The downside is an equal amount of money would have to be spent paying our workers. I say, make the Corporations provide their own security and fund their own diplomatic efforts.
Nonetheless, I fear that Kerry is not the man for this job.
4. If progressives automatically vote for the Democrat, then why should Democrats care what we think?
Ah, but if progressives never vote for the Democrat, then why should Democrats care what we think?
The time to abandon the Democrats is when the Democrats need to be punished. Al Gore was the incumbant stand-in in 2000. Clinton failed on health care, pushed NAFTA and WTO without significant labor side agreements, and ended AFDC. And suposedly, it was Gore, a very active VP who convinced Clinton to sign Welfare Reform. The Dems needed punishing, and a vote for Nader was how to do it.
Today, the incumbant who needs punishing is Bush.
Want to build a progressive movement? Good, but I do not see it through the Greens or Nader. The Greens are getting NO press. I am a news junkie and active in progressive circles in San Francisco, and I didn’t recognise David Cobb as the Green candidate. And a Green damn near won the Mayorship here last time.
Nader, sadly, is now offically JUST Nader, with no “movement” behind him.
What’s the best way for a progressive to get their opinions represented in Washington in a place of power? Elect Democrats – ANY Democrat, even bible-thumping Dixicrats – to the U.S. House of Representatives. Get the Democrats to retake the House. Result:
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.
(*MY* Representative! BOO-YA!!)
Decnavda,
You think it was a good thing that Zell Miller was elected Senator? We part ways on this concept.
Jake,
I think Decnavda’s position has to be amended slightly: Vote for Democrats who will vote for the party leadership. Totally renegade conservative democrats are no use whatsoever.
Of course, a functionally minority Democratic rulership (gets to assign the committee seats, but can’t reliably muster 50% + 1 vote) in the House or Senate can’t do that much good, but it would still do unimaginably less evil than Republican rulership.
And really, is it a worse thing that Zell was elected than that his last opponent was elected? Zell voted for Daschle as Senate Majority Leader in 2001, thus helping to slow somewhat the reign of evil. Wouldn’t we be marginally better off if Chafee and Snowe were Democrats, even if they voted the same on everything except Party control of the Senate?
On the presidential question, I don’t think that voting for president is a particularly effective
or relevant way of moving this country towards a more progressive state than any of the major party candidates represents. Running and campainging for president may be (and I campaigned for Nader in 2000), but voting for president isn’t. I can see validity in protest voting, but it strikes me as more the politics of purity than effective politics (on the other hand, national level voting is sympathetic magic, so rationality only goes so far). Personally, I approve far more of the politics of purity than Amp does, so please don’t take that as disparagment.
Dec has a point. The reason that Democrats abandoned progressives was not because they were assured of our vote so much as they were reaching for the ever-growing conservative vote. If we won’t work them, they won’t work with us.
Not that we should sell out. Sometimes I fear people think compromise means selling out your principles. It means you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours. This is what the Christian right wing has gotten–in exchange for their votes, the Republicans have rolled back women’s rights and gay rights, issues they probably wouldn’t have cared about otherwise.
I’m not taking anything except insults as disparagement. I’m actually really enjoying this thread.
If Democrats never put any progressive issues in the forefront, how can they think that there is any reason at all for leftists to vote for them? We’re coming to the chicken or the egg question on this. But they’ve had the votes in the past (mine included) and they are now losing them. So, who’s move is it? I have my obvious opinion on the matter.
I can’t be sure that I agree that there is any point in slowing the rate of growth of evil. It’s still growing and it really doesn’t seem as if anybody is paying any attention. Clinton being to the right of Nixon on most things was never really talked about in the mainstream.
I agree w/ Amanda in principle (principal?) on the back scratching thing. That has really been my whole point to Dems. Give me something, anything that supports my issues and I’ll happily vote for them. The problem is that the DP isn’t doing thing one to constructively address any of the issues that I think are most important.
Charles, I really don’t think that my vote for president counts for a whole lot. Too many people & demographics for me as an individual to really make a difference. On more local levels, it absolutely does make a difference. That is why I did not and could not vote for Governor Killer in Oregon under any circumstances.
The last time I cast a vote for a Democrat was in 1992. There is a reason for this. The reason being that they haven’t even given me tablescraps. They have given me “welfare reform,” blame for their electoral failings, insults, hate, deregulation of utilities (yes, that did begin before Bush), war, and horrible feelings of despair. Has the DP even made overtures? No. Just demands. A politician or political party needs to earn my vote, not expect it. Is it any wonder so many people don’t vote when it is not even possible (so they’re told) to vote in their own self interest?
I want to be convinced that voting for Kerry is the right thing to do, but every time I pay attention to anything except my disgust & horror at Bushco, it becomes harder & harder.
If Pelosi was supposed to be our Great White Hope, why did she start kissing Bush’s rear and playing “rah-rah war” about three minutes after she was sworn in as Speaker ?
The entire DLC and Terry McAuliffe need to be deposed in a bloodless coup and shipped off to Mars. Then maybe something other than scum would finally be free to rise to the top of the Party.
Also, I refuse to take seriously the idea that we should all simply ignore the Greens or any other 3rd Party because “they get NO press,” as if this were entirely their fault. Ummmm… hellllooooo… Corporate Media. Helllooo… [knock knock] Screwed-up election laws… hellooooo… ???
Alsis,
Agreed totally on the DLC and McAuliffe. On the other hand, it is really only by working to elect more progressive Dems (and by taking over the party at the local level) that such a thing seems likely (to me) to be brought about.
The real work for politically oriented progressives (those who are oriented toward the electoral aspect of the political process, as oppossed to mass-movement politics or issue group politics) is in working to produce a larger crop of progressive politicians. This is similar to what the Christian Coalition and others on the extreme right did in the 70-80’s. There should be progressives being run for school board and water and soil conservation posts, working their way up to city board positions and state house seats, and there should be explicitly progressive organizations nurturing, training and funding them, providing campaign advice and policy summaries. At the same time, progressives need to develop stronger systems for funnelling money to progressive candidates at the next level up.
All of this happening to some degree, including through the Greens (who have made fairly steady progress electing local politicians, and have come close in large city and state level races) as well as the Dems, it just needs to happen much much more.
I think that all of us agree on this (except possibly on the question of whether it is better to try to retake the DP, or whether it is better to abandon the DP and try to build a new party). The question of what to do when the only candidates available are very bad and worse is the only question on which we all disagree (and perhaps the question of whether Kerry is very bad, or only somewhat bad or even potentially influencable to good).
I’m as much of a Clinton-hater as anyone (I’ll never forgive his Iraq policy), but as far as good policies that happened during the Clinton administration, the Earned Income Tax Credit was vastly expanded during Clinton’s administration.
I am voting for Kerry for reason of global stability. I feel that Bush will just increase the growing trend towards nationalism as global opinion towards American policy continues to worsen. We need to show the world we know we were wrong to invade Iraq illegally and we need our allies more than ever.
For good Clinton policies, I would add the Americorps program. I have know several people who have benefitted greatly from participating in it, and have seen a respectable amount of public service work aided significantly its participants.
Also, while they failed miserably at both of them, they did make a serious attempt at both Universal Healthcare and repealing the ban on gays in the military.
For other good Kerry program promises: massive increase in college aid and in financial support for colleges are promised. Also, much larger financial support for environmental monitoring programs (something I would favor for purely selfish reason even if I didn’t think they were a good idea, since it is what pays my wages). That last one was also the primary reason the woman I vote traded with in 2000 gave for favoring Gore.
Alsis, that’s the best argument for pushing for campaign finance reform and laws against media consolidation. I am 100% behind that. But since that’s the card we’re dealt, we have to play with it.
Michael Powell is a media consolidation extremist–if he had his way, nobody but bug-eyed wingnuts would get the microphone. Dismantling the corporate stranglehold on the media is going to be hard work, but the first step is *not* to give control of the FCC to the Republicans.
Well, Amanda, let’s make a deal. If Kerry actually wins, appoints a “media czar” who favors re-regulation and/or de-consolidation AND (unlike Clinton’s relationship with Reich or Wright-Edelman) ALLOWS them to carry out their long-term goals AND somehow persuades the customary Congressional bloc of conservative Zellian “5th Column” Democrats to vote for this czar’s policies… ummmm… after I recover from my fainting spell, I’ll personally write Kerry and his czar, AND the entire Congress and Thank them. And I’ll send them all a nice assortment of chocolates, too.
In the meantime, though, we should get in every ruler or wannabe ruler’s face and demand these things.
I agree that I am talking only about Dems who vote for the Dem leadership. Also, I was specific about the House and Pelosi. Pelosi is a woman, and if the Dems take the House, she would be the first woman Speaker. More important, she is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and favors extreme pro-choice, gay rights, single-payer health care (I’ve heard her speak on the topic), and voted against the war in Iraq. If progressives want more from a Democrat than Pelosi, well, this just isn’t the right country for you. (Not that that is a bad thing.)
Zell
1. Caucuses with Republicans.
2. Is in the Senate. I was promoting Pelosi, I can see why a progressive might not care to promote Dashell.(sp?)
Kerry, even though I was a Nader voter in 2000 (Clinton in 1996).
Judging from the experience of Jesse Ventura as governor of Minnesota, a reformist populist executive has a helluva struggle to govern. Nader doesn’t have any backbench to support him in getting policies through Congress, and is likely to succeed in getting through policies similar to what Kerry would be able to get through.
If Kerry wins, it’s only the beginning, though. I expect all Democrats and those left-of-Dem to press Kerry to hold to the reversals of Bush policies he’s specified, as well as some progress of his own. And I’ll welcome Nader being one of the leaders of public pressure – that’s what he’s been good at for the past 40 years.
If Bush wins, it’s a disaster for liberals and progressives, and a disaster for this country. I forsee a draft and extended involvement in guerrila war in the Middle East, about three new Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia, and increasing division in the country leading to more unconstitutional activity by the DOJ, including Guantanamo detention without charge or trial for mainstream political dissenters.
I think Charles hit it on the head: progressives within the Democratic party need to organize like those on the far right have within the Republican party in order to pull the center of gravity back to the left.
The Republicans have pulled the whole center of discussion so far to the right that Democrats have to disavow being “liberals” while being a “conservative” is still okay. (Or do we need to create a new category of “neo-liberals” the way the conservatives created “neo-cons”?)
They are better at working within the system than we are and, in the end, get better results that way. If people like Kucinich can have powerful progressive groups behind them along the lines of the Moral Majority or Christian Coalition, then the Democrats will listen to progressives again instead of going after moderate conservatives.
Maybe we, on the left, need to stop letting the whole system disgust us to the point that we just give up on the Democrats, thus (effectively) handing the country over to the Republicans. Maybe we need to work within the Democratic party and pull it more to the left, make it more progressive.
Wasn’t Zell Miller appointed, not elected, to the Senate? I believe so.
Personally, I voted for Kucinich in the primary. I will be voting for Kerry in the election. I’m afraid that the Republicans, with another four years in the White House, will manage to drag the conversation so far to the right that there won’t be any room for progressive or liberal thought in this country. I fear we are close now. Karl Rove can do a lot of damage in four years and I don’t want to see it happen.
“The Democrats have either actively participated in or stood by silently as the social safety net has been unravelled over the last three decades or so. And THAT’S a fact. Period.”
This may be true. But who created that social safety net to begin with? That’s the Democratic party I love, and I know a substantial percentage of the party base is still committed to those ideals. The problem is we have had to combat an incredibly well-organized right wing effort over the last three decades that has been able to shift the “center” far to the right. Primarily through control of the media.
What is most needed, now is a *shift* to the left, to bring the perceived political center back to where it was 30 years ago. Then we’ve got a toehold to swing it further and further left in future elections. The Right knows this. That’s how they got Bush in power to begin with. 30 years of co-opting what’s considered “mainstream” political discourse and pulling it further and further in their direction. So what was considered fringe 20 years ago is getting serious consideration & play today (like this fucking abstinence-only sex education).
Kerry is much further to the left than any frontrunner we’ve had in some time. He might not be as progressive as many of you would like, but he’s a strong step in the right direction. If Bush gets re-elected, however then that will give the right a perceived mandate that will allow them marginalize progressives even further of the scope of “acceptable” politics.
It’s already gotten so bad that the 40-some % of Americans who oppose the war were almost successfully marginalized as “UnAmerican”. And this is a substantial chunk of our population. If you’re garden variety moderate Democratic war opposer is being ignored then progressives much farther to the left aren’t going to stand a chance in hell of being taken seriously in the next 4 years, or for how long afterwards?
Ampersand, my understanding is that while Kerry doesn’t support redefining “marriage” (feeling it’s a religious and not a legal issue) to include same sex couples, he is absolutely in support of civil unions and committed to making sure same sex couples have the exact same rights as married couples, including parental rights. In 1996 he was only one of 14 senators – and the only one running for re-election – to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act. And he would have voted no against the most recent one, too had it gone to a vote.
I’m also curious to know what information you’re basing your assumption that he supported “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”?. Everything I’ve read indicates he was a vocal opponent (and one of the few who testified to that effect in front of the Armed Services COmmittee). He’s got a 100% approval rating from the Human Rights Campaign (they claim to be the largest GLBT advocacy group in the nation?)
Kerry is much further to the left than any frontrunner we’ve had in some time.
mustang, are you kidding me ? What in blazes are you basing this assertion on ? Unless you’re planning to jump in a time machine, grab the 1971 Kerry’s brain, come back to 2004 and replace this year’s Kerry brain with the 1971 brain, I just don’t see it at all.
I worry that the shift back to the Left is not something that we can count on most Democrats to push for. They certainly let Clinton get away with everything short of murder for eight years.
I have no real gripe with Democrats who want to build on Progressive caucuses within the Party. At least it’s better than sitting on one’s ass and pouting. However, I don’t think any of these efforts will really be effective in the long term without:
A) Reformation of the electoral system to allow for 3rd Parties. They have historically been the spur for much of what we now think of as “Roosevelt’s legacy.”
B) Campaign finance reform. The real thing, not just these sops we get here and there.
I’ll add others if/when I think of them. But those who think that goodwill and sincerity on its own will be enough to drag this fucking dinosaur kicking and screaming out of the Reagan Era ought to study the trajectory of The Rainbow Coalition and think again. In any case, I don’t think either a Lefty caucus within the Dems OR a viable 3rd Party need to be mutually exclusive entities. They CAN be made to work in tandem, IF we can somehow agree on a core issue or two that everyone can dig their heels into and not back down from.
Myself, I have severe misgivings about the “from-within” reforms. The folk running the Democrats are, frankly, horrible people. They are corrupt and nasty, and I think that far from being people who will encourage or even tolerate grassroots reform from within their own yard, they will consider the goals of most grassroots movements to be completely anathema to their own goals. This explains much of what happened to the Rainbow Coalition, what continues to happen to mainstream feminism, my Union, and so much more.
Varro, you live in Oregon just like I do. You SAW what that piece of shit Bradbury and his judge buddies were willing to do to force Nader off the ballot. Yeah, fine. People think Nader’s an asshole. But this shouldn’t just be about Nader. The Oregon Secretary of State and the judges have just sent a message loud and clear to every 3rd Party candidate or party in the state, not just Nader. The message is: “If we decide you are genuinely causing our party/interests trouble, we will make up our rules as we go along in order to swat you away as many times as it takes until you give up.”
That’s a wretched and disgusting precedent, and one that has been echoed in other states. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that this is only happening because the Demos are pissed at Nader. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that they won’t try it again with any “fringe” candidate who fails to bow out of a tight race after they command him/her to do so.
And THESE are the people I’m supposed to trust to protect the Constitution and look out for my rights ???!!!
Fuck that. [scowl]
Okay, here’s me.
2000, voted Nader in California because (a) safe state and (b) wanted to send message to the big parties. Because Gore comfortably won CA, I have no regrets about that decision.
2004, gonna vote Kerry in CA. I really wish Nader would drop out and try and redirect his supporters to Kerry. I can cynically resign myself to the realities of big politics, but I can’t accept the GOP’s naked power grabs and total evasion of any responsibility for anything. I want them punished. GOP delenda est. I want a Kerry landslide and massive down-ticket wins. I want the Republican party marginalized and demoralized. I want no chances taken with even a single vote given away to third-party candidates given that the CEO of Diebold is committed to delivering electoral votes to Bush.
If you’re in a safe state and voting for a third party, I won’t hate you. I might shrug and sigh at worst.
But if you’re in a contested state – and with the polls as wacky as they’ve been lately, it’s hard to say what’s a safe state and what isn’t – and you can’t bring yourself to back Kerry, then you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face. Worse, you’re cutting off my nose. Or something. Vote Green or Reform or Libertarian all the way down-ticket if you want – that’s how a little party becomes a big party, by the way – but please help us smack down Dubya. I’m on my knees here.
But you’re willing to trust Nader to protect the Constitution and your rights – even though he’s willing to totally sell himself out to the Republicans to get himself on the ballot/ elected? I see a lot of criticism of Kerry’s record & why he hasn’t done more in his career for progressive causes (though, could *anybody* succeed in implementing any kind of progressive bill with the Repubs controlling Congress for so long?) But what has Nader been able to accomplish that gives you so much confidence in his ability to effect change? Or Cobb for that matter?
Alsis, I know it’s a total lost cause to ask you to think of the Dems as anything but the spawn of the devil. The leadership may be comprised of power-hungry, amoral slackwits who you perceive as being sellouts. But that’s what politics is. Compromise. Without a majority in Congress, without someone even remotely on our side in the White House – the minority is pretty fucking powerless. We can’t even control what bills are heard in committee or introduced for a vote let alone which ones will get passed, or signed into law. As long as the Repubs are the majority part, any minority – be it Dems or Greens – will have no choice but to beg for support from the more moderate Repubs if they want to get *anything* accomplished.
Now, if there were more Greens in Congress that would be something. Get a couple of senators in there, and you’d get the best bang for your buck, given the Senate’s current close split. Then the greens would be the swing vote, and then they’d have some serious bargaining power. But even if they did – with Bush in the White House it won’t do any good. He’ll just veto anything that comes through. At least with Kerry, you’ve got a pretty damned good chance of seeing some parts of the progressive agenda actually implemented.
The really conservative religious right were pretty well marginalized before they threw their support behind Bush – even knowing he wasn’t as far right as they’d like. Now, even though they don’t represent the beliefs of the majority of Republicans (I don’t think) they’ve got some substantial power. The progressive left could have the same power by throwing their support behind Kerry, even knowing he’s not as far left as they’d like. But he’d owe the progressive community big time, and to have any hope of getting re-elected, he’ll need to pacify them. Wouldn’t you like to see a progressive as head of the EPA? Or the FEC? BLM?? Health and Human Services? With Kerry, you’ve got that chance. With Bush – zippo.
Oh, please. Not that canard about Nader “selling out to the Republicans” again. When you’re ready to discuss the huge wads of cash that Kerry has received from Republicans, how Democrats fell all over themselves after 911 to give Bush whatever the fuck he wanted, or how Kerry was virtually slobbering all over McCain to be his running mate, get back to me on Nader.
If you have to ask yourself what Nader has accomplished in the last forty years compared to what Kerry has accomplished in his own career, I can’t help you. I think it’s obvious who has done more with less. But think what you want, since you will anyway.
BTW, I never said that I had made up my mind to vote for him, only that I wouldn’t under any circumstances vote Kerry.
Did you read what I wrote about Bradbury ? Tell me, Mustang: How are Greens to get so much as a City Councilperson on a ballot in a state where shit like that goes on with no one batting an eye ? I’d really like to know.
For the millionth time, mustang. Compromise involves both sides ceding something. Kerry has ceded nothing to me. Ergo, he doesn’t deserve my vote. He doesn’t really seem to believe in anything except his own entitlement to power.
All but about 1/350th% of the Left has already thrown its support behind Kerry, for which they have received exactly nothing in return. No summits, no offers, not so much as a “thank you.” Oh, wait. I lied, Medea Benjamin got thrown out of the DNC for yelling “Stop The War.” And Terry McAulifee was quoted as saying that the Party “has nothing to do with” those hordes of protesters in NYC.
Tsk.
You’re right, mustang. How can I resist a man like that ? It’s impossible.
Take me, Johnny/Terry. I’m yours.
Shit.
alsis, provide links and references to Kerry taking money from prominent Republicans and from Republican or known R front organizations to finance his run for office. If you don’t have the article but do have primary information, I can guarantee that some news organisation or partisan rag will print it. When the Nader allegations were made, there were names of prominent supporters and organizations, verifiable.
Look, I support your right to vote for whatever Nader is calling himself now, the Greens, the Natural Law Party (Old Testament should be the basis of law), or sit home on your duff, but do try to back up allegations.
Quite a few “partisan rags” already have, Nancy. But you’ll have to wait until I can get away from work before I can post them. Or you can just hie over to Counterpunch or CommonDreams or the Nader homepage yourself and start reading.
BTW, if anyone wants to post or email me link directions, please do. Every time I think I’ve got it figured out here, it doesn’t work. :o
Amp, you might be interested to know that Kerry is running away with Oregon’s Klingon demographic.
Alsis, as far as how to do links, you can try looking at this page. It’s a page I made for another blogger who was having trouble figuring out links.
Well, like I expected, about 75% percent of my forays for dirt on Kerry and his campaign money led me to Republicans and fr**p*rs. The rest does indeed come through places like Counterpunch, Nader’s homepage, and my occassional sister/brother ankle-biting intransigent on Common Dreams. Of course, these last three are pretty much all that’s standing between me and a straitjacket during this campaign (With occasional help from The Black Commentator, which has a decidedly displeased view of the Democratic Machine and which issued an endorsement of Kerry that can politely be described as “Grudging,” and Tikkun, which clearly doesn’t like him but doesn’t actually endorse candidates.)
However, since I suspect these sources won’t cut much ice with NancyP, I did also unearth this. It’s from The International Herald Tribune:
Kerry Donors Often Gave More To Bush
Well, that didn’t work worth diddly-shit, Amp, even though I tried to follow your instructions to the letter. So I guess NancyP will have to play cut-and-paste if she wants to continue with this tennis match:
http://www.iht.com/articles/509703.html
Oh, and Nancy, if you want to try and tell me that this doesn’t prove anything because it’s only one article in a sea of dozens lobbing the “Republican Sellout” canard at the Nader campaign, you can spare me. If Democrats can proclaim, and rightfully so, that the media has a conservative bias, I can complain with equal credibility that its bias against Lefty 3rd parties is even bigger. There’s more than one level of spin and more than one layer of agendas at work here. At least Kerry can always count of the rubber-stamping skills of some rabidly-foaming clown like Eric Alterman at the Nation and various yapping nitwits at Salon. Nader, OTOH, is on their shit list and has been for several years. You could hardly expect them to want to compare the Republican portion of Kerry’s funding –not to mention its overall size– to Nader’s own war chest under those circumstances.
Alsis –
The reason it didn’t work is that you made a typo. Instead of typing “> at the end of the link address, you accidently typed >” . I’ve fixed the link, though, so it should work now.
Alsis,
Thanks for your excellent arguments here. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
And I’m wondering how Linnet knows It’s a fact that more people will die if Bush wins. Period. How the heck do you claim that as fact? And isn’t that like Cheney saying that if Kerry wins, we’ll be overrun with terrorists?
Thanks, Amp. :o I swear in another decade I’ll have the hang of all this. Then I’ll finally be ready for my own blog, long after the rest of you have moved on to something more healthy and fun, like BuffyCons or kite-flying. Possibly both. :D
On a related note: The Hypocrites of TheNaderBasher.com
…To date, the only “progressive issue” associated with the organization [a 527, like Moveon.org and others] is the claim that Nader–after four decades of liberal opposition to corporate power and political corruption–is conspiring with right-wing Republicans to help Bush keep the White House.
Does the National Progress Fund live up to the standards it demands of Nader?
Not so much.
According to reports filed with the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS, rather than the Federal Election Commission is responsible for monitoring 527 groups), the organization’s largest donation from an individual is $25,000, from Robert “Bobby” Savoie. Savoie was head of Science and Engineering Associates, which recently merged to become Apogen Technologies, where Savoie is vice chairman.
Savoie’s company is a major federal contractor, providing all manner of services to the Department of Energy, the IRS and the Pentagon. Currently, Apogen is doing an especially brisk business with the Department of Homeland Security–designing databases to track the movements of foreign visitors to the U.S.
Does it seem odd that someone who has done well by Bush’s “war on terror” would help the Democrats? Actually, Savoie has a long record of keeping his bread buttered on both sides.
About a month before his donation to the National Progress Fund, he handed over $25,000 to the Republican National Committee–and a month before that, he gave $2,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee. His wife, Lori, by happy coincidence, gave equal amounts to the same organizations on precisely the same days… –Shaun Joseph at Counterpunch
Uh, alsis, wake up to politics and graft 101.
Business types often donate something to both sides, to get access no matter who wins. The common pattern among those who do donate to both sides is to donate the max to their favored party/candidate, and small amount (a third to a tenth) to the other major candidate. This seems to be common among large corporations who expect to deal with regulators in the next cycle, and also want to tailor bills and riders. Less commonly they give the same amount to both. It is also true that many businesses donate only to one side, and these are likely to be smaller businesses who don’t have anticipated regulatory issues and don’t expect to need bill riders. They let their industry associations give to both parties.
Business types do not give to third parties in anticipation of help with regulatory issues or help in introducing favorable bills and riders, since the third parties aren’t going to win. If Nader or other third-party candidate were polling 30%, they might start giving, and fast! But with polls steadily in the lower single digits, there is only one reason for them to give. Spoiler-hood.
Very few people in business give large (>$1,000.00 personally, >$20,000.00 mandated from own employees) donations just because they believe in the candidate. They give to get favors or occasionally ego strokes (photo op with candidate).
Recent posts and discussions at Dead Men Left may be of interest. De-mythologizing politicians and plutocracy clearly remains a noble task, if one still largely performed by the slaves. Glad to have found this discussion as well.
Uh, alsis, wake up to politics and graft 101.
Uhhhh… Lay off the snotty tone and patronization, if you please. You tried to embarrass me by catching me in a lie. It didn’t work, because I wasn’t lying.
I never said you had to vote for Nader or regard him as St. Francis of Asissi. I said that if someone is going to call Nader a “Republican Sell-Out,” it’s asinine to use that as grounds for dismissing his canidacy but not Kerry’s.
Enough with the fucking double standards, already !!
Thanks for the link, Matt. Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury’s conniving against Nader is nicely gathered up here. You just need to scroll down about four headlines on the main page.
I don’t know what I find more repugnant: Bradbury’s behavior or the fact that his only opponents for his job are some fatuous pro-Lifer and a –shudder !– Libertarian. Maybe I’ll just write in Lloyd Marbet, the one-time Green candidate, for the post. I’ve always liked him, and I’ve seen him at all kinds of anti-war demos and actions since 911, something I cannot say about Bradbury nor any other elected Democrat where I live. As far as I know, no Demo in office ever shows his or her face at those things. :(
To be fair to The Guardian –referred to in the Dead Men Left link– they do have at least one contributor who called upon Americans to ignore the scare tactics of the Democrats in regard to Nader. I don’t have time to look up his name at the moment, though.
Also, drublood, Thanks for the props. But to be fair to Amp, he does mention on his list of reasons to vote for Kerry that it would save the lives of women to UNFPA, because –hopefully– Kerry would revoke Bush’s vile gag rule. I understand that, and I guess my determination to keep my back turned on both major parties makes me a “bad feminist,” but I’ll live with it. I simply can’t base every last political decision on self-sacrifice for humans worse off than I, because there will always be humans on the planet worse off than I. If that seems cold to some, it’s certainly no colder than high-powered Democrats and mainstream feminist institutions using the fate of women overseas as a bludgeon to keep me in line, trying to guilt-trip me about the small maneuvering space I’ve got even as Democrats do their level best to shrink that space as much as they can… or to enable those that are doing it.
NancyP,
So you’re saying that it is better to take contributions that you know are essentially bribes than it is to take contributions that are based on someone believing that your planned actions will benefit them? Why should Nader care that someone is giving him money because they think his campaign will hurt Kerry? Nader is still going to do exactly what he wants to do. How is this worse than taking money that you know comes with strings attached?
If right-wing contributors went to Nader and said “We’ll give you lots of money if you agree to spend your time attacking Kerry,” and Nader said “Sure thing!” then I could see your point. However, I don’t think there is any evidence that happened.
Alsis,
The problem I still have with your position is that I still completely [fail to] understand how not voting for Kerry will help to achieve any of the things you want to have happen. While voting for Kerry would be unlikely to achieve most of the things either of us wants to have happen, it might achieve a few things that we want to have happen. If I could see how voting for him achieved less good than not voting for him, I could be convinced that not voting for him was the right thing to do, but I just don’t see that.
On the other hand, I don’t believe that your voting for him in Oregon will actually achieve any good at all, since I am confident that the rest of us will be sufficient to carry Oregon for him (or that he will lose badly enough elsewhere before he looses Oregon that Oregon simply won’t matter), so if you think that voting 3rd party will somehow help to create conditions in which our 3rd parties have greater influence, than good luck to you, and I hope you are right.
[Edited a bit for typos by Amp – hope that’s okay!]
Charles, I’m not sure if a 3rd Party vote is the answer to the problem. I AM about 99% sure that voting for one more rich, arrogant, pro-war DLC clone whose party machine eagerly conspires to shut down 3rd Party “interlopers” is NOT the answer to the problem. That’s the best I can do. Sorry.
Linnet said: Pointing out facts isn’t guilt-mongering. It’s a fact that more people will die if Bush wins. Period.
Is it not a fact that more people will die no matter who wins? If another candidate canned immortality and it somehow dodged the “right-winged” media, I am all ears. Otherwise, that’s weak.
Jake Squid: I am all for campaign finance reform; however, at the risk of sounding like a recording, I see national defense as top priority. Not only do I see it as a top priority, but I see it as one of the few things government does fairly well. I can do most things for my family, but providing protection against terrorism is not one of them.
Amanda: The problem with the TV antenna illustration is that Kerry doesn’t merely adjust to clear up his vision/picture, he tends to change channels. Try that during the Super Bowl.
alsis38: Are most people who are a hiccup and a half away from “the streets” blogging their butts off? Or is that just you? Just curious.
Jen,
You don’t see national defense as something that is currently well funded and well carried out? Or do you see it as something that could be significantly cut & made less effective in the near future? Do you see national defense as something that would be significantly cut in order to implement CFR? I just don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Oh, and last I saw Bush/Kerry are polling even in Oregon.
Jen wrote: Is it not a fact that more people will die no matter who wins?
In context, it seems to me that Linnet meant the same thing I meant in the intitial post, when I wrote: “Kerry would almost certainly refund UNFPA and get rid of the global gag rule. This would have a positive effect on the lives of tens of thousands of poor women worldwide – it seems likely that there are many women who will be more likely to live to 2008 if Kerry’s in the White House.”
Jen wrote: The problem with the TV antenna illustration is that Kerry doesn’t merely adjust to clear up his vision/picture, he tends to change channels. Try that during the Super Bowl.
As far as I can tell, the idea that Kerry changes his mind more than any other politician is Republican spin. This page, for instance, includes a few direct quotes from Kerry in 2001 stating his position on Iraq back then – and it’s perfectly consistant with what Kerry is saying about Iraq today.
Are most people who are a hiccup and a half away from “the streets” blogging their butts off?
Two words, Jen: Crystal Meth. My simultaneous salvation and downfall. Before that, I made all my money on smuggled Iraqi sacred relics. Ah, youth…
Or is that just you? Just curious.
Thanks for your interest. Oh, and as long as I’m coming clean, I don’t actually care about Politics. I just saw Peter Camejo on the Gubernatorial campaign trail last year and couldn’t get over how cute he looked in those tight red leather pants. Soooo much better than those stodgy headshots of him you see on Nader’s homepage.
Cheers !
“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed….”
Amper makes the point that his vote is highly unlikely to change the outcome of the election by voting for Kerry, citing “The Myth of the Wasted Vote.” But, as little chance there is that he will determine who is the next president, his ability to promote the Green party is just as minuscule.
An analogy might be a choice between 1. the chance to win $1,000,000 with a chance of 1 in one million, and 2. being given a penny with a near certainty. Who is to say which is better?
More important than how Amper feels about this choice is how a large group of people feel about this choice. The “Myth of the Wasted Vote” can become the Reality of the Wasted Votes Which Elected Bush, Again.
If everyone on the left side of the political spectrum did an individual cost/benefit analysis, they would end up staying home (as many people rationally do) or splitting the vote between candidates possibly causing another 4 years of Bush and an increasingly conservative.
Much like recycling, being kind, not littering, or many other parts of participating in civil life, we do our small part and together there is a large effect.
So, Amper, I hope you do not use your vast influence to convince people their vote is not important in this election.
How progressive voters that would like to back the Green Party (if we had electoral reform) feel about the value of voting for Kerry has a good chance of affecting the outcome of this important election.
Kerry supports a law that kills over 1.6 million Americans a year. Last I checked, those numbers were a little different than the numbers that have come out of Iraq.
Abortion is wrong, and we shouldn’t vote for someone who promotes it. We need a leader with morals. We wonder why America has gone to Hell; it can be traced to a definate lack of morals in our culture. What good are laws for the enviroment if the human race has been destroyed because of our own stupidity?
STAND UP FOR LIFE
I agree with Amanda, it’s the 1500 people in an administration that concern me most. And in this case, I’ll vote anyway I can to get John Ashcroft out of office, and the neocons, and the petrocons.
Democrats had a majority when Ashcroft and many of Bush’s other li’l warriors were up for confirmation. I wonder why he (and they) got confirmed in droves, if Democrats are such great friends of ours…
[whistles, stares at ceiling]
The devil made them do it?
Yeah, Jake. The same devil that made John “I’m Not A Petrocrat, Bruce” Kerry promise Hoffa that when *he* became President, there’d be “drill[ing] like never before” on public lands.
Whoop-de-do… :p
bush is nothing l am with mm on this
bush is nothing l am with mm on this
It’s twice as vacuous the second time !!
It’s twice as vacuous the second time !!
going back in the thread quite a ways —
given the choice between a near-certain penny and a one-in-a-million shot at a million dollars, the one-in-a-million shot should be about a hundred times better. averaged out over an infinite run, the latter offers a certain (or nearly so) $1, after all.
Pingback: ALLABOUTGEORGE.com
On Topic:
Readers who followed the much-heated discussions on bipartisanship may smile atthis comix page by Hyung Sun Kim.
I probably forgot something in my tags. Let’s try it again.
:D I still remember the episode of Boondocks where someone kidnapped Nader to try and keep him from running. Never found out whether they let him go or not, though. :/
Glad you liked it, Alsis. When the blog was down, I actually was about to email you the link.