Third Party & Independents: Archives

David:

As usual a great piece…however, I have some thoughts.

Albeit we need a good strong third party that speaks for the moderate majority of folks who want low taxes, less big government, dont really give a damn about who marries who, and would really rather keep thier church views private instead of preaching from the mountaintop, you must admit that right now we just dont have that.

Nader has some good ideas. So do the Republicans, so do the Democrats. However, in the context of “Anyone but Bush” (who is something other than Republican, though i’m not sure what) a third party might tip the scales in the incumbent’s favor.

Then again, it was a third party, namely Ross Perot, that helped push Clinton’s numbers to unseat Bush number one.

It does make a difference because it’s all about numbers, and quite frankly…money. Nader hasn’t either of those to win…but he might have just enough to allow Dubya to keep his throne.

David;

“If the DNC wants so desperately for Nader to not run, why doesn’t the DNC offer to incorporate some of Nader’s platform issues in return for not running?”

Absolutely! 100%

I have been saying this to the Democrats online and in letters to the editor in my local paper for the past three years. I have worked to give the Democrats valid, viable and responsible reasons for adopting the positions shared by Nader, Kucinich, the Libertarians, the Greens and other third party and Independent voters but all that I get back from the Democrats is personality cult crap and partisanship blind loyalty bull.

Actually, what I have been trying to promote this cycle has been simple, all that the Democrats need to do is debate the issues in the platform debate. But as the Republicans admionish us to just say no the Democrats insist that we just say nothing. This will not do.

The Democrats refuse to comprehend that it was not Nader who cost them the win in 2000 it was Democratic support for policies, for more than thirty-four years, that have been mass disenfranchising the nonconformists and disaffected of America that cost them the White House in 2000. It was people like career prosecutor John Kerry who has ardently supported the counter-productive terrorist supporting Drug War in the face of passionate Independent and third party opposition. the Democrats will not learn that they cannot expect me to vote for someone who ardently opposes what I pasionately support. An end the the anti democracy Drug War.

Kerry is no different from Bush. On that you are 100% right. In fact he has, as his national security advisor, Rand Beers, who came over from the Bush White House to tell Kerry how to continue all the same foreign policy mistakes that Bush has made. I want Kerry in there as much as I want Bush in there but I will accept him if he would simply see the folly of being a right wing liberal. Liberal in name only.

John Kerry…Drug Warrior http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/2kerr.htm

I will again work for Nader in 2004 as I did in 2000 and I will do it for the same reasons.

The better URL for the John Kerry…Drug Warrior web page is http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/kerr.htm

Call me cynical, but I find these politics too implausible.
1- Mel Gibson releases the movie Passion in the middle of a bitter election campaign.
2- The Arab-American Ralph Nader enters the presedential race and will thereby destroy the chances of Jewish-American Kerry.

Is this the beginning of the balkanisation of American politics?

Ricky, thank you for reminding us all that racism, fear, and ignorance are still alive and well in America. My father made similar remarks. He had my sympathy too, his fearfullness just would not permit him any other mindset. We do indeed have a long way to go yet in America.

Thank you Mr. Remer.

> If the DNC wants so desperately for Nader to
> not run, why doesn’t the DNC offer to
> incorporate some of Nader’s platform issues
> in return for not running?

That’s a bit of a disingenuous question. By the same logic we could ask: “Why doesn’t Nader try to incorporate his platform issues into the Democratic party platform?”

The answer to both questions is the same: It seems that Ralph Nader can only imagine one way of advancing his political ideals: him *personally* running for President.

He seems unwilling to do the hard work of advancing his agenda through the more difficult but far more probable channels of party politics. He could help the Greens at the grassroots level, creating a foundation left-wing power base while also avoiding sabotaging the Presidency. There is so much more he could do by NOT running for the Presidency.

Instead he reaches straight for the brass ring. This is why many of us see Nader as personally arrogant, and why we attack him personally. How can we not, when he is so unwilling to view himself and his agenda as two different things?

David, you keep saying that asking Ralph not to run is somehow an insult to or infringement upon his right to run. But many of us on the left believe that, although Nader’s platform might be right on, his political skills are so bad that he would also, in fact, be a terrible President.

-Cf

David: You are right to suggest that “Ralph Don’t Run” advocates should be trying a little sugar instead of so much anger. Here’s my attempt at being sweet. It’s the best I can muster.

——————————————————
[sent to info@naderexplore04.org]

Dear Ralph Nader,

I ask you not to run for President. If you do run I will try my hardest to convince people — on the merits of your candidacy and through legitimate debate of the issues — not to vote for you.

Running for President is your choice, and voting for you is every voter’s choice.

By asking you not to run, I am assuming that many Americans will want to vote for you. But I am fairly confident that if you run you will find that many of your supporters from 2000, burned by the terrible presidency of George W. Bush, will have deserted you as a candidate. And I am abolutely certain that many, if not most, of those who have not yet deserted you could be easily convinced to vote for the Democratic candidate in the 2004 election. My fear, though, is that there is a small group of die-hard Nader supporters whose tiny vote count might tip a key state or two away from the Democrats yet again, and trap us with Bush yet again. Perhaps I don’t trust some of your supporters to make what I think is the right choice for our country, and I suppose that by asking you not to run I am trying to deny those voters that choice. I can live with that.

In a broader sense, running could hurt you and your cause more than help it anyway. A Nader 2004 campaign will most likely result in lower ballot numbers for you and your party. Your effort to give third-parties credibility and power in the USA will be further weakened by your own weak showing, and, if Bush wins, you will even further alienate progressive Democrats from alternative political tools, and perhaps from political action entirely.

Please do not run. Please try to advance your agenda through more patient means. Support Green candidates at the grassroots. Support progressive politicians within the Democratic party (there are some!). Bestow Green party endorsements to appropriate Democrats at all levels. Create Green caucuses in local, state, and national legislatures. But please do not bet the farm - and our future - with a blindered focus on a Ralph Nader Presidency.

I wish your progressive platform the best.

- Christopher Fahey
——————————————————

Thanks Christopher for once again proving that you will not address the issues but can only attack the man.

LOL!

John Kerry…Drug Warrior http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/kerr.htm

You are doing what the Democrats did in 2000 that cost them the votes that went to thrid party and Independent voters.

You are also proving, in the worst way, what George Washington was referring to when, in his farewell address as the first president of the United States, he warned: “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.” “>http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/pol/gw.htm

EDIT:

I wrote;
“You are doing what the Democrats did in 2000 that cost them the votes that went to thrid party and Independent voters.”

I meant to write;
You are doing what the Democrats did in 2000 that cost them the votes that went to third party candidates.

It is still the issues not the candidates that matter to me.

Republicans just say no while Democrats just say nothing.

> Kerry will likely be the new boss, same
> as old boss…

I won’t even address the “Kerry is the same as Bush” part of this (except to say “wtf?”), but I do question the assumption that Kerry is “likely” to win. Kerry beating Bush is of course my wish, but it frightens me that Nader supporters think that Kerry is a shoe-in, or that their vote for Nader cannot possibly affect that inevitability.

If this assumption of Democratic victory is a building block of your support for Nader, then I am glad because that assumption can and likely will be disabused in the coming months before the election by Gallup, Zogby, etc.

-Cf

CF, the ‘Kerry is likely to win’ concept comes straight from Terry McCauliffe. Listen to him on TV today. It is your own attack dog saying “we will win if Nader does not run.

Think about this logic. I think Bush is listening to this and thinking, ‘Hey, I could win again too if Kerry and Edwards just won’t run. Perhaps I can convince them not to. ‘

Fact is, anyone could win if they ran unopposed. How absolutely absurd of McAuliffe to suggest that others should not run just so his candidate can win. ABSURD!!!!

John Kerry has hired a George W. Bush national security expert for terrorism and drug war policy. Rand Beers. A man who has lied to congress to push his agenda.

To sme it does indeed sound like the new boss is the same as the old boss.

KERRY TAPS DRUG WAR ZEALOT AS TOP ADVISOR
John Kerry’s top foreign policy advisor was the architect of a cruel and counterproductive coca fumigation program in Colombia

David:

Dead on target.

Absolutely ABSURD!

The Democrats have no concept of or respect for democracy.

David, your analogy is inconsistent. By asking Nader not to run, we are asking him to help accomplish something that he might actually think is a good thing for our country: preventing Bush from winning again. It seem probable that Democrats could convince Nader that Kerry would be a better President than Bush. The RNC asking the Democratic nominee not to run is not analogous because they could not convince Kerry that Bush would be a better President than Kerry.

Nader says that there’s no difference between the candidates, but I and many progressive Democrats don’t believe that he really believes that - we think that his “Tweedledum/Tweedledee” argument is mere political rhetoric designed to influence disenchanted liberals and idealistic young people. The reality of the post-2000 Bush Presidency backs us up: Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Would he have plunged us into so much debt?

Perhaps this is really where Nader supporters and liberal Nader detractors part company - either you see Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry as indistinguishable twins whose Presidencies would be exactly alike — or you see them as having meaningful differences which, however slight, could have profound impact on our country and on the whole world for decades to come. Is this really what Nader’s support base all boils down to? (I really would like to know the answer to this.)

Also, I am not going to defend Terry McAuliffe (I don’t watch TV news and don’t follow DNC pronouncements) except to say that neither he nor I have the ability to force Nader not to run. We are both speaking to the same audience: Nader supporters who now realize that there is a difference between Bush and Kerry/Edwards/Gore/whoever. We are also hoping that Nader sees that there is a difference. If he agrees that there is a difference, he will probably not run. Those of us who don’t want Nader to run are appealing to his logic and his heart - we are not threatening him.

-Cf

Cf, that was, in my opinion a well reasoned and intelligent response to my posting. I can’t pretend to know what is in Nader’s mind. He may have been planning all along to attend Meet The Press and announce he is NOT running. Nader is a person who has acted on a consistent set of principles for what he believes is going to be necessary to save our democracy from demise at the hands of polluters, short term opportunists, and special interest lobbyists and privileged access to politician’s ear.

I know Dem’s are not threatening Nader. That is what is so damned admirable about Nader, he can’t be bought, bullied, or threatened. Not that the Dem’s have not considered ways of buying him off, threatening, or bullying him.

But, I would differ with you on your premise that somehow Kerry will be a better President than Bush. I think, and believe, that Nader is correct on this issue. The D’s and R’s are not different from each other on the issues of getting elected, staying elected, and their dependence upon special interests and their money to meet those objectives. In other words, what is wrong with America will never be made right as long as R’s and D’s share power over the Fed. Elections Commission (FEC), and continue to draw their support from the very same corporate and wealthy money troughs.

I mean, why didn’t Clinton work to raise federal fuel taxes to that level that would have made alternative clean and efficient energies market competitive? One guess - DNC contributions from special interests in the energy marketplace. The benefits to consumers in the long run would more than pay back the shorter term increases in cost of living and cost of doing business. Clinton could have even offered a federal income tax cut to compensate for raised energy taxes - makes perfect sense - would have been palatable to consumers knowing their environment would be cleaner for their children and our dependence on foreign energy sources would have been reduced.

And Clinton and his advisors did think of these ideas and didn’t like the political costs - translated, means campaign donation losses. Why is Kerry going to be any different. He has been taking special interest money his whole political career. New Boss, same as old boss. New boss elected by same process and resources as old boss.

David, thanks for the thoughtful debate. You are correct that both major parties are corrupt, perhaps even equally corrupt, and that there are a great many issues where both parties are identical — and where Nader and the Greens sharply differ. Nader supporters are quick to point these out, and I agree with them!

But there are a great many issues where the two major parties and candidates differ. If given a stranglehold on power, the right will likely create even more distance between the parties, steering our country farther and farther to the right.

A Democratic President who uses corruption and dirty tricks to accomplish at least some of the legitimately good political goals of their supporters and their platform is still better than a Republican President who uses corruption and dirty tricks to accomplish some of the truly backward and oppressive political goals of their supporters and platform.

The stakes are too high, IMHO, to let this happen.

-Cf

If Nadar runs, the dems still might win, and if he doesn’t they still might lose, I say if Nadar wants to run let him and get over it, the dems got more votes then the rnc last time around and I think a lot of idependent Bush voters won’t be on that side again anyway.

Christopher;

The New York Times editorial today defined your perspective nicely.

“Totalitarian nations hold elections, but what sets democracies apart is offering real choices in elections.”

Elections With No Meaning

Martin:

There are a lot of good reason why the Bush league should lose.

- They never got a majority in 2000.

- They have since alienated core constituencies.

- They would never pick up any of the third party votes that felt that Gore was too right wing and who, today, feel that Kerry is too right wing.

But then the Democrats can lose by allowing the same tight margin to happen again. They seem determined to run a campaign based on personality cult foolishness and shallow party loyalty herd behavior fear mongering. They are focused on most superficial advertising mindset and refusing to ask the fundamental question, ‘why did Americans vote for Nader and other third party candidates in 2000?’.

Following is a letter that I wrote back in January to James Carville about this situation.

____________________________

Dear Mr. Carville:

Jan. 7, 2004

I believe that there are good strategic reasons why George W. Bush should not win in 2004 based on analysis of the 2000 turnout, the controversy over the 2000 result and Bush’s actions since then. But I also believe that the Democrats are doing everything in 2004 that they did in 2000 to drive voters away from supporting Democrats in 2004. Bush can’t will but the Democrats sure can lose this election.

-What was the one issue opposed by both the Republicans and the Democrats and was common to the three largest third party groups that drew voters from the Democrats in 2000?

-What is the one Democrat and Republican policy that has had the government disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of Americans, mostly minority, each year since 1970?

-What is the one national policy that was designed by the right wing of the two dominant parties together in 1970 to neutralize, undermine and subvert the empowering effects of the Voter Rights Act and the Twenty-sixth Amendment?

-What is the one issue mostly responsible for allowing the Republicans to purge more than one hundred and fifty thousand voters from the Florida voter rolls in 2000?

- What is the one issue that turned the Greens into an 86,000 strong Party in Florida in 2000 when they did not even exist in Florida in 1996?

- What is the one policy issue that, aspects of which, have won electoral majorities in 18% of the states since 1996 but is still ignorantly opposed by both the Democrats and Republicans?

Drug War policy reform is that issue.

The Drug War was never created to mitigate drug abuse. That is why America has 5 million addicts today when America had fewer that four hundred thousand addicts when the Drug War policy was created by Richard Nixon. The Drug War was created to suppress, mitigate and neutralize the dissident, nonconformist and minority empowering effect of the VRA and the 26st Amendment. At that it is a great success.

Young people who demonstrate a potential to question the status quo by questioning the drug laws by experimenting with proscribed drugs are as likely to question other dictates and dogma of the powers that be. The two dominant parties do not want voters who question them and so the two parties impose the Drug War on America.

But socially curious and questioning young people are also what makes really great political activists for social change. Such personal traits used to be thought of as good Democrats when I worked for Gene McCarthy. But the right wing of both parties, together, decided that such Americans were to be identified, marginalized and disenfranchised whenever such folks could not be coerced or co-opted into capitulation to the right wing status quo of America. This is the basis and purpose of Bill Bennett’s “culture war”. What amazes me is that the Democrats go along with this subversion of their own basic constituencies and activist base. The Republicans must be laughing their asses off seeing you guys incarcerating your most aggressive potential supporters, America’s nonconformists and socially aware dissidents of all colors.

An aggressive national security, public safety, public health and pro-democracy platform could be articulated for immediately ending the Drug War. the Democrats just say no.

The $64 billion dollar a year US black market empowers gangster predators to buy drugs from terrorists and then turn around and sell those drugs to American children. The violence of terrorism today is really just the same kind of escalation of violence as the gangsters introduced in the roaring twenties when liquor money fueled the predators. More money today only means richer and more aggressive international predators with greater plans for the world.

Regulation and taxation of the narcotics market would directly attack the 39% of terrorists who the DEA says finance their activities against us with drug dollars from the $500 billion a year world wide black market. Including bin Laden.

I do not believe that the Democrats will win in 2004 because the Democrats have not learned these lessons about the Drug war and from the 2000 election.

Good luck because I will not vote for any Drug Warrior Democrats. Period. And all of my drug policy reform friends say the same thing. We vote this issue. Kucinich will not get to the general election and those reformer votes will not transfer to a drug warrior Democrat. those votes will again go to third parties and any Independent candidates who articulate a pro drug policy reform platform.

The Democrats have no concept of or respect for democracy.

Perhaps not, or perhaps they merely realize that electing someone even slightly better than Bush is preferable to four more years of his horrible policies.

I believe the US would be better under Gore, despite how boring he was. Nader’s 98,000+ votes in Florida could have delivered the election to Gore, who only needed 500 or so more to beat Bush. I believe Nader is a good man, and has an important message. I’ll still be bloody pissed if he delivers Bush another election.

ceejayoz, I agree with you right up to the part of being pissed if Bush wins another 4 years. If Bush thinks he can use his next four years to unify his base, the independents, and swing Dem’s, he is a dreamer. His next 4 years regardless of economy or outcome in Iraq, will unavoidably expand the chasm between working class and independently wealthy. His next 4 years will unavoidably shepherd us into an era of foreign indebtedness, personal family indebtedness, and national indebtedness that will cause interest rates to escalate rapidly toward his 3rd and 4th years, see skyrocketing bankruptcies even above current levels, and find us in serious international feuds over international trade, military presence, and future military threat capability. These are all unavoidable because of the agenda he must follow from this point forward.

Let him have his 4 years, we will pay dearly for them, but, also, hard won lessons are not easily forgot. Let the American people learn what life can and will be like under the Republicans who have all the power. Let them learn for themselves what fearfull leaders can do to make sheep of us all, and enemies of everyone else. Let the public watch their next generation sold into tax slavery far worse than anything our own generation has seen. And let them see how inept and inconsequential the Democrats are to stop any of it. Then, maybe, the American People will stand up for a better party, a better candidate, and a better way of governing which puts all American citizen’s interests on their priority list, not just the privileged few.

ceejayoz:

It is not a slight difference of opinion for me. Kerry is a career Drug Warrior who ardently supports policies that I passionately oppose. You are sasking that I vote for someone who I know in advance will do just the opposite of what I believe is the most important things for America to do today. All because he is not Bush.

I survived Nixon. I survived Reagan. I will survive George W. Bush.

I will not vote for someone who ardently opposes what I passionately support, ending America’s longest civil war, the Drug War.

Due to his personal obsession with Iraq and his natural incompetence George W. Bush has not been as bad as I had expected him to be. He has simply given the Drug War some window dressing while repeatedly screwing up starting a pretext for invasion of Central and South America.

On the other hand Gore was an author of Plan Colombia and Kerry has supported it in all of its insidious forms and disguises. Kerry was responsible for the stupid legislation that empowered the U.S. military and CIA to get involved in targeting civilian aircraft over the Andes to be shot out of the sky. He is in no small part responsible for the deaths of the American Christian missionary and her daughter in the spring of 2001.

Peru missionary shootdown
Kerry sponsored enabling legislation

“There is a risk of killing people not involved in criminal activity,” the State Department warned in a memo on May 10, 1994, which was obtained by the National Security Archive, a private research group.  In the memo, department lawyers said involvement in shooting down civilian aircraft would violate international law and urged policy makers not to take part.

(snip)

So that June, Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, sponsored legislation that would exempt American officials from any liability stemming from the destruction of suspected drug-trafficking planes. With that protection in place, Mr. Clinton ordered American airmen and technicians in December to join the Andean anti-drug operations.

May 2001 © New York Times

Pat Rogers,

So, stopping the Drug War is the only policy that is important to you?

I’m against the Drug War, but I’m against most of the Right’s other policies too. Kerry’s gonna represent my views far better than Bush will, even if I disagree on a few issues.

ceejayoz

I have offered links and copious notes outlining why the Drug War is an over-riding issue. National security, public health, public safety and pro democratic reasons.

I believe that the Drug War is subverting the bedrock Democratic legislation of the Civil Rights era, the Voters Rights Act. As well as the Twenty-sixth Amendment.

I believe that continuing support for the Drug War is giving aid and comfort to al Qaida and other terrorist armies around the world. For me, to vote for a Drug Warrior is to vote for someone who is helping to fund bin Laden through the policies and legislation that they advocate and empower.

John Kerry…Drug Warrior
http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/kerr.htm

Drug War policy books, reports and articles
http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/dbks/dindex.html

I stand for democracy. It is why I left the Democratic Party in 1995. The Democrats sdo not stand for Democracy. The Democratic Party’s prosecution of the Drug war is proof that the Democrats are contemptuous of democratic institutions and traditions in America.

The Drug War is the standard that I use to judge the differences between candidates and parties. The Democrats and the Republicans, both, fail the standard.

I will support Kucinich if he gets into the general election. Fat chance. So I will hold true to my ethical standard and vote for a candidate who respects my perspective. I will not vote for candidates who are contemptuous of my perspective. John Kerry’s career is one of contempt for responsible and rational reform of the Drug War policy.

It is no small matter to me that Kerry sponsored the legislation that resulted in the collateral deaths of innocent civilians. The wrong-headed nature of such legislation had prevented previous policy makers from writing just that legislation.

I don’t know if he can be trusted with the military. He has not done a great job with this little affair.

ceejayoz

The Drug War is not simply a right wing policy it is a policy of the Democrats and the Republicans TOGETHER. They do not differentiate themselves and so I can not choose between them. I am forced to look elsewhere to see a potential for change.

I’ll grant you, if the Democratic candidate’s lead is good enough this time, I think a third party vote would be the most conscientious one someone in the green party could cast. But if things are close, I would ask that you cast your vote for the Democrats, so that Bush never gets the chance again to turn a slim victory into an electoral triumph. I know this is asking a great deal, but the only message we can trully send to washington is a majority. Any other message, this time, will fall on the deaf ears of George W. Bush.

Personally I don’t think 4 more years of Bush is going to destroy America like most liberals. Some even suggest that Bush is planning a coup d’etat and concentration camps for liberals. Now who’s believing in aliens? Nader should run. Two party politics has become a fiasco. Maybe the democrats should part into a left wing (Nader, Kennedy ideology) and a centrist wing (Kerry, Edwards ideology). Same should happen to the republicans. That party should divide into a centrist wing and a right wing. The centrist wings of both parties could merge, creating a THIRD party. Now a centrist has to either choose the democratic party and support left wing views he doesn’t like, or choose for the republican party and support right wing views he doesn’t support. We need a third centrist party.

A timely and substantive piece David, well done! You and Mr. Fahey are both right – it’s way past the crucial point where Nader and the Dems should’ve been body-slammed in the other’s direction. It’s a similar agreement and discussion I had with one of the founders of RepentantNaderVoter.com. It’s not too late to make that connection and emphasis our common ground. That it starts at WatchBlog, all the better!

I also understand Nader and McCauliffe have had two discussions, in the past week.

And, I for one will stick up for Terry McCauliffe! His antics or shtick is a calculated persona meant to illicit similar outrage as yours! He’s purposely playing the lightening rod to distract the Delays’, while leaving breadcrumbs for the likes of Coulter and Drudge. He’s the Cato Kaelin of the ’04 election!

If the Democrats had been confronting the real issues that effect the poor and disaffected of America Nader would not have a venue.

The Democrats are on the side of the oppressors on too many core issues. The Democrats are on the same side of the issues as the Republicans in too many ways.

Since the Democrats refuse to distinguish themselves from the Republicans Nader is forced to act out some tough love and try to bring to the election the perspective that the Democrats, in their blind zeal to win, will not allow themselves.

Nader and Kucinich are close, personally. I am hopingthat Nader is planning something forthe next couple of months that will actually bring more exposure to the Kucinich campaign and issues.

If anything Nader will energize the left of the Democrats to support Kucinich better if they really want to avoid the Great Satan Bush.

(:^>)

Pat, that rhetoric was used last time. You know what it got you? Bush. The essential problem with making that allegation, is that it invites and encourages apathy, and apathy is not a problem Republicans and conservatives have. Like them or loath them, the Republicans show up. I have seen the polls that put Kerry ahead in the general population again and again still give the lead to Bush among registered voters. We do not need to encourage more apathy on the left, because as we have seen, it is bad enough to vote for a bad candidate, it’s even worse to fail to vote against him.

Nader should not run, because our situation now demands that the left hang together to oppose Bush. The only message that will ring clear to conservatives will be a majority electing a liberal president. Once again, it could be a close race, and we will need help to defeat Bush.

Well, it’s too late now. He’s running.

Interestingly, he’s not running as a Green candidate - he’s running as simply Ralph Nader.

All arguments that his candidacy helps build an alternative to the two-party system now fall flat since he’s not offering any alternative besides Ralph Nader - no party, no movement, no coalitions.

I actually like the long-term idea of there being a Green party in our country, a party that can form coalitions with the Democrats to more easily defeat Republicans on key issues, but which can split from the Democrats when there is key disagreement (much like caucuses do in the Congress now). Because of his association with the Greens, Nader actually had an ounce of sympathy from me. But now he’s lost it. More than ever I stand by my contention that his campaign is a vanity project and not a true, reasoned strategy for making America better.

Anyway, my guess is that his candidacy won’t make as much of a difference now - loyal Greens won’t feel any special need to vote for him since supporting him doesn’t help the party anyway.

Here’s something to think about: Ralph Nader will likely siphon votes away from whoever the Green party candidate is this year. What Ralph Nader did to the Democrats in 2000 he will do to the Greens in 2004. He’s worse than I thought.

-Cf

Stephen Daugherty:

It is wholly unsupportable to claim that anything I write encourages apathy. I encourage real participation rather than mindless partisanship.

If Bush wins it will be because the Democrats turned their backs on their core constituencies again because the Democratic leadership is, at heart, still the Wallace Democrats and you would rather have Bush than confront the issues that underpin a Jim Crow political system.

If the Democrats refuse to differentiate themselves than I must look elsewhere.

“Nader should not run” is so arrogant that it is beyond comprehension to think that we are both born and raised in the same democratic republic.

You seem to like democracy only so long as you get to dictate the rules.

Christopher Fahey:

You missed the call for a unity campaign of third party and Independent candidates across the country. He would lend a crowd to any local campaign stop for any congressional, state or local candidate.

You forget that Nader’s multi-perspective pro democracy assertions along with many of his other positions mesh well with George Soros who is an ardent opponent of the U.S. two party system and George W. Bush at the same time.

David,

While you may not mind seeing the next generation sold into tax slavery, I, being a part of that next generation, would hate nothing more. I would rather not pay for the mistakes of a previous generation. My generation will probably make plenty of mistakes for ourselves to fix. Every generation does. While I understand where you come from as far as wanting us to see what kind of hell Bush can put us through, I have seen enough. While the Democratic Party is not the best solution, it is all we have right now, and it is better than what the Republican Party presents.

Like most Democrats, I do not mind too much that Nader is running. If we can’t oust Bush with Nader, we don’t deserve to do it without him, either. However, I don’t like the attitude that we can screw my generation so that your generation can be taught a lesson.

Robert, I have a 13 y.o. daughter, I am as concerned about the debt being passed on to her as anyone here and I have written a great deal in criticism of the national debt. I do mind, and so should you. Voting to maintain corporate America and social and legal justice on the paychecks of the poor and working people of this country is a vote for the Democratic and Republican Party.

Want to change it? Vote Libertarian or Green Party. A vote for either of the major parties is to vote for status quo - our history shouts this fact to the rooftops - but we are so deafened by the din bought and paid for by the contributors to the parties, by advertising firms, and by corporate America who have only one interest - Consumerism. To keep you, I, and all the other good sheep earning and spending, earning and spending, earning and spending, —- that is the guiding principle behind the backers of the two major parties.

Want to break the cycle of generational debt? Quit spending more than you earn, save a part of what you earn, discontinue buying what the media tells you to buy, and discontinue supporting the two major parties who are bought and paid for by the same folks whose only goal is to you and I to spend, and spend, and spend….

David, you’re not dealing with the real question. We have two parties. Less than 50% of the electorate bothers to vote. The rest doesn’t care. Instead of Democrats whining about Nader stealing their votes, they should ask themselves why they can’t reach the 50% of the electorate that doesn’t vote. That’s the question. These 50% don’t feel at home in either party, so more parties would mean more choice and more people voting. But I guess that would break the two party duopoly and that’s why Nader should stay out. The two parties are protecting their jobs and don’t want any competition. In this case what’s good for democracy is not good for the democrats and the republicans. Go after the 50% non-voters, not after Nader.

A point that Nader makes on his site bout the 2000 election and responsibility. While the Greens had 96,000 Florida voters there were 250,000 Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush.

I think the Democrats have a pretty soft spot in their heads to again be trying to kiis up to these sright wing Democrats who voted against the Democrats. The Democrats would be much smarter to try and appeal to progressives and leftists for Nader and the sthird parties who actually do identify with values that are core to the Democratic platform. But I will bet you bombs to baby buggies that Kerry will use Nader to run to the right just as Gore used medical pot to run to the right in 2000.

David:

48 minutes into this announcement, that you can find with a search at C-Span, is the most eloquent and passionate defense of third party politics that I have ever heard. The speaker is Alan Keyes. Never before have I both agreed with him and agreed with him 100%. His defense of democracy nearly brought a tear to my eye. Every editor and political pundit in America should be required to watch it once.

FEC Complaint Filing Against Presidential Debates Commission
George Farah, Exec. Dir. of the advocacy group Open Debates, announces the filing on an FEC complaint against the Commission on Presidential Debates.
2/19/2004: WASHINGTON, DC: 2 hr.

Also, while it is still available on the New York Times site, you might want to read their editorial on Saturday about Gerrymandering. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/21/opinion/21SAT1.html

” Both parties have succeeded in drawing district lines in ways that cement their power by eliminating contested elections.”

(snip)

“Totalitarian nations hold elections, but what sets democracies apart is offering real choices in elections. In recent years, contests for the House of Representatives and state legislatures have looked more and more like the Iraqi election in 2002, when Saddam Hussein claimed 100 percent of the vote for his re-election. In that same year in the United States, 80 of the 435 House races did not even include candidates from both major parties. Congressional races whose outcomes were in real doubt were a rarity: nearly 90 percent had a margin of victory of 10 percentage points or more. It is much the same at the state level, only worse. In New York, more than 98 percent of the state legislators who run for re-election win, usually overwhelmingly. Anyone who knows anything about New York’s state government knows that’s not because the populace is thrilled with the job they’re doing.”

Pat, one of my professors has a list of rules he presents to his students on the first day, one of which is: A difference, to be a difference, must make a difference.

What you need aren’t statements of political independence. What you need to do is do what what the Republicans did: put down your disagreements for a little while to get something done that will benefit everybody. You can claim that there would be no difference between Bush’s regime and Gore’s but what seems similar in the campaign rhetoric, ends up being vastly different in practice.

The difference between Clinton and Bush on Iraq is an example. Where Clinton rejected the Neo-Con’s arguments for an invasion, despite his belief in Iraq’s intransigence on the WMD issue, Bush charged right in. Whose example would Gore have followed? Whose advisors would he have chosen?

On tax cuts, would Gore have held on to them in the face of the Economic downturn, or would he have gone for better fiscal discipline?

In terms of corporate mlfeasance, do you think Gore would have been more or less likely to follow up on those events with reforms, and reinstatement of previous regulations?

You cannot tell me that Gore’s administration would have been the same. It might have been similar, but in the course of history it’s the little nuances that matter.

Right now, the Green Party is fairly minor. It will not elect a president in the near future. But what it could do, and what might turn the tide is form coalitions with other political parties.

As long as the Green Party wants things to themselves, they will always alienate potential support. But if they throw their cooperation into certain debates on a local level, they could build the kind of support that will enable them to prosper on higher tiers of the federal system. The one thing that has so polarized American politics is the kind of religious zeal with which we hold our party standards. But in more parliamentary countries, with multiple parties and pluralities to deal with, the political organizations often temporarily combine their political influence to create goverments and oppositions.

Why don’t you guys do that? Ask the Democrats to push some of your policies through, and then tell them that as long as they do so, they will enjoy the support of the Green Party in other endeavors, perhaps on a more local level.

I don’t know. It just seems that opposite what Machiavelli says, sometimes it is better to be loved than feared.

David,

Right now, in my opinion, a vote for a third party candidate on the national level is a throw-away vote. It will get me absolutely nowhere. The only way to get change is to work within the system, and unfortunately, third parties are left out of the system on the national level.

The way to support third parties, and the way that I have supported, do support, and continue to support third parties, is at the local level.

Stephen:

That is the shallowest load of sophistry to rationalize getting me to abandon what I know is right and instead adopt what I know is wrong.

I am not a Green. I am a George Washington Independent. George Washington: “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.”

If you had even done a quick surf of the pages that I have posted regarding Kerry you would see that I am talking about major national security issues. I ma stalking about major criminal justice issues. I am talking about major human rights issues. I am talking about fundamental democratic institutions issues and I am talking about public health issues. All of which, because of his support for the Drug War, John Kerry is on the wrong side of.

John Kerry…Drug Warrior

John Kerry supports policies that continue to fund bin Laden and he sknows it.

John Kerry sponsored legislation that he knew others had rejected as too dangerous and too stupid. The result was the deaths of innocent Christian missionaries being shot out of the sky over Peru.

John Kerry has as his national security adviser a man who has lied to congress to support the Drug War. Rand Beers. Kerry brought Beers in from the George W. Bush administration.

Even is I were still a Democrat I would not vote for Kerry.

I wish this forum had an edit function.

Sorry about the sloppiness in that last post.

Robert, I agree, part of what must happen to make 3rd parties competitive nationally is to make them well known and successful locally.

I am going to begin starting up a Green Party for my county this week. Wish me luck.

Go David, go go!

I am an Independent and I am always proud to see Americans like you who have come to recognize the disease on the body politic that is the Democrats and the Republicans.

When the Democrats try to cast Nader as a spoiler just remember this fact from his web page. In the 2000 election in Florida 250,000 self described DEMOCRATS voted for George W. Bush.

As the Democrats today run to the right in a vain attempt to get those right wing Democrat votes they spit in the face of core constituencies that Nader naturally appeals to.

David,

Best of luck to you. What county? If you’re close, maybe I can lend a small hand.

Robert, Comal county just 35 to 40 miles N. of San Antonio. Are you in the area? I will indeed be looking for all the help I can get. I contacted the Green site and they have a start up package to help. Figured I would get a web site up first and go from there.

Unfortunately, I’m in Tarrant County (Fort Worth), so I don’t know how much help I could be from up here.

“Why don’t you guys do that? Ask the Democrats to push some of your policies through, and then tell them that as long as they do so, they will enjoy the support of the Green Party in other endeavors, perhaps on a more local level.”

Been there done that. Didn’t work.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Roger, because we don’t need the Democrats to pursue our agenda or win offices this year. The Dem’s sure aren’t to proud to admit they need Nader’s voters.

David,

We don’t need Nader’s votes this year. That is to say, we shouldn’t need his votes. If we can’t oust Bush, with all the harm he has done this country, even while Nader is running, we don’t deserve the White House.

Agreed, Robert. We get the government we deserve by the amount of work, education, wisdom, experience, values and priorities we bring en masse into the voting booths. Or lack thereof.