Third Party & Independents: Archives

Rev Matt:

I think Nader makes it clear why he is in the race. He doesnt feel that either party will discuss many of the issues he thinks should be discussed. While I dont agree with many of his stances, I do agree with his reason to stay in the fight.

And I find the Democrat party appeals for him to leave the race cynical. Where were Democrats when Ross Perot took votes away from Bush 41 and why did they not complain? The reason is clear, and it is the same reason why Dems are silent on the now revealed lies (oops, “mis-statements) of Joe Wilson, why they want no investigation of Sandy Berger, why they dont hold people like Whoopi Goldberg responsible for trashy statements.

The reason is: It was helping them, so they toss their morals and virtues in the garbage can and cynically move forward.

Haha! joe, cynical is the GOP funding Nader’s campaign. And then trying to make the GOP out as the victim? Please!

rev, I’ve heard Kerry address every one of those 12 issues. Just not in the same way or to the same degree that Nader does. Bush isn’t going to talk about them at all.

And as for Perot, joe, each of the parties in the 92 race polled at about 30%. Perot was stealing the moderates from both parties. Nice try. :)

AP:

First, its no secret that had Perot NOT been in the race, Bush most likely would have won. There is no argument to that.

I almost concluded my original post by saying that Republicans are just as guilty of the cynical game playing. I dont beleive the Repubs are “victims”—- I was merely showing how the Democrats are cynical.

It is interesting to note that you didnt deny the Democrats are cynical—-you just pointed out that the other guys are TOO. My daughter did that a lot in her younger days——yknow, shift the blame to some one else, or at least share it with them in an attempt to somehow lighten her responsibility.

American Pundit,

I’m still trying to get a copy of Kerry’s book so I can check out what you keep saying. From what I see of Kerry I don’t believe he’ll actually cover any of those topics like Nader does. You wouldn’t want to mail me a copy of the book would you? ;)

You know, I think Ralph just won my vote.

Joe is onto something. Republocrates with hidden agendas are destroying our Democracy for personal gain. For our Democracy to survive, the electorate must be able to remember for at least two years what these crooks say and put two and two together. What are the odd’s of this?

But, Independents have no choice but to support Kerry (Intellect) vs. the neocon puppet Bush (Moron).

NEOCONS STAND FOR: cultural collapse, mass immigration, war on the middle class, the nation state and emergence of democratic totalitarianism in our own societies, through perpetual war. Like bin Laden they extort allegiance with God (the opiate of the masses).

George W. Bush to the Palestinian Prime Minister: “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you can help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.”

Barbara Bush on “Good Morning America”? “Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many…It’s not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?” Babs declared in all seriousness.

Ann Coulter, opining: “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

WE MUST RECOGNIZE THE DANGER OF THESE MORONS AND KICK THEM OUT OF OFFICE. KERRY IS OUR ONLY HOPE.

Welcome to the enlightened Bob! Neither of the major parties is ever going to take Nader or third parties for granted again - and voting for Nader and making contributions to a third party is the action which millions of Americans are going to make on Nov. to insure it.

Lars, —YUP !!! But it must be done democratically - by voting for the candidate reflecting positions on the issues which reflect the electorate’s conscience and view of what needs to be done. For my money, that is Ralph Nader. In the short run that may mean reelecting GW Bush. In the long run, it will mean the end of the Republican and Democratic stranglehold on power and a far more open and responsive political system.

I can safely vote for Nader without fear of affecting the elections outcome. I live in the Deep South. As discussed previously on this web site, if you state is overwhelmingly for either candidate vote your conscious.

David:

Interestingly, we might sort of—-just a little bit— agree on this. I find myself cynical about almost all politicians. Some I find just plain stupid, others ignorant, and most greedy and concerned only about their electability. I like the idea of having a third party that forces the other two to alter their methods.

That’s not saying I like Nader, because I find him too socialistic for my tastes. But I dont like the status quo either.

For people like Lars, the choices are easy. This is becuase there doesnt seem to be much of an effort to put much thought into things. Its really just “anyone but bush” and not even necessarily for the right reasons, but rather a more visceral vague and vapid dislike.

But for many of us, both parties have their flaws, and perhaps a third choice would force the issue. As it stands, a person like Lars will never ever vote Republican, so his vote is basically cast for the Democrats. And there are those on the opposite side as well. If both parties only had 30% of the country rather than the 45% or so they have, maybe they would be more receptive to the one group they should be most receptive to: the people.

Bob J Young,

Not all states in the South are decided. I live in Arkansas and it’s up for grabs. Be careful. You might help spoil and election!

joebagodonuts,

I like what you’re saying. I’d like to think I’d vote Democrat or even Republican someday if they fit my values. I don’t want to feel hooked on a party like the Democrats. It’s the “vote Democrat if you aren’t a Republican, or Republican if you aren’t Democrat” kind of view I think. It’s hard right now though with so little support for alternative parties. Someday it will be different though. Someday…

I too would vote for a third party based on cynicism, if I wasn’t so cynical of the third parties themselves. Now that’s a spider hole!

This is a problem for conservative and libertarian minded people when voting for the GOP. If you believe in limited government or are of a constitutional view then you gravitate to the party that says they are for limited government (the GOP) vs. the more progressive and pro-government minded Democrats. But they (the GOP) are career politicians just the same as the Democrats, so to actually limit government would be against their own self interests and thus the hypocrisy of the that party is exposed. That’s why so many conservative and libertarian minded people are fed up with Bush right now and the modern GOP in general.

Third parties can run as the alternative and can attract the cynics, but they lose it when they start acting like, well, political parties. Couple this with all the work the big two parties have to done to make sure that no third party can crash the party, and you see why it is hard to get out of the two party paralysis.

Bob, it’s a cushy place to be, like myself in Texas. I would hate to have to make the decision between Kerry and Nader as a resident of Ohio!

Jbod, there are some Republicans I would vote for federal office under most circumstances, like Jack Kemp or John McCain. They are moderate Republicans who view their role as one of representing all the people, not just those of their party. I would not agree with a number of their issues, but, I would trust them to make their policies work for the majority because of their history of desire to unite Americans as prerequisite to positive government. An Independent by my definition is willing to vote for the candidate, not the party.

George, I agree except for the GOP being for smaller or more limited government. That is rhetoric only. When Gingrich left, so did the committment to smaller government.

To vote for smaller government today, one needs to vote for the Libertarian or Constitution Party. But, those two have other platform baggage that doesn’t sit well with large cross sections of electorate, so, even if they became a power broker, there would be no fear of their becoming a dominant party. The same may be said of the Green Party.

It’s going to take maybe 50 years before 3rd party politics in this country will mature. At that point, we might have to move to a more parliamentary system of gov’t.

Green or Libertarian, Kerry is certainly not the savior of our democracy. That’s a joke and a misinterpretation of the man. If anything, Kerry is running as Bush-lite, similar to Gore’s 2000 strategy. The main difference is that he’s smarter (or at least his campaign staff is) on how the message comes across. Plus, he’s riding on so much dislike for Bush co. policies. This was actually started by Dean in the primaries and Kerry managed to co-opt the message.

You wouldn’t want to mail me a copy of the book would you?

Sorry, Adam. I’m in Singapore right now. The postage would cost me more than the book did. Check it out from the local library. It’s worth the trouble to read the man’s thoughts unfiltered by people who have no idea what they’re talking about…

Kerry is running as Bush-lite, similar to Gore’s 2000 strategy

…like that nonsense. :)

Daniel, a lot of things could happen to speed that time table up. Another terrorist hit, or an economic relapse.

David:

You mean things that the Democrats are “hoping” for? Or at least willing to stomach for the “good” of the country? I mean, what are a bunch of deaths or major money woes if it leads to a defeat of George Bush? :)

Though I’d like to think otherwise, I disagree David. I think that another terrorist attack would produce more Repub leaders (or at least people like Arial Sharon) and more economic hardship would produce more democratic leaders. Third parties, IMO, won’t gain any real traction until people start recognizing that both parties have not been truly working in their constituents’ interests. The line I’ve heard in the Green Party is “How much longer are we as a society going to vote for these guys (the dems)? They haven’t done much to improve our lot, or the lot of the working poor, the disenfranchised, etc.”

This is currently happening, slowly but surely. At least on the left, I think a lot of progressive democrats are tired of the limp-wristed stances their party took on the war, gay marriage, and a bunch of other issues. As an anecdote: I worked the Green Party table at the Baltimore Pride Festival…which is a gay pride festival. Countless people came up to me and said how dissatisfied they were with the democrats; how angry they were that they didn’t oppose the war on principle.

you know you guys can say anything you want, bush is a very dangerous guy. someone who is obviously anti intellectual, who rules through division and appealing to a hate filled base masquerading as religious nice guys, do you really trust this man? talk about cynical? anyway who the hell cares. and about ralph nader, did you catch him on bill maher? the canadian minister gave him hell all right. nader appears to me to be the ultimate nihilist and bush appears to be the ultimate cowboy. all balls no action, at least where it counts

having read the 12 things i hate about you…they don’t even matter, who gives a damn at this point about corporate masters when we are in the fight of our life against the meanest most deceptive government that we have ever had. you can dicker all you like and you can be prissy too. who gives a damn if kerry is “bush lite”, he ain’t bush lite, and i don’t care if he is, he ain’t bush and that’s all i care about. so if you are smart you will vote for kerry because four more years of a bush administration will be very deadly for the world, for future generations and for all of us here in the good old usa

I care very much about protecting myself from corporations. I agree that Nader’s really going about his campaign in a stupid way.

I will most likely vote for Cobb as I live in what’s known as a safe state. If I vote Kerry in my state, I’d be throwing my vote towards someone who is as corporate-owned as Bush is. This, to me, is anathema to democracy. If we keep putting off fixing our political system, we deserve people like Bush. It might be a different story if I lived in a not-so-safe state that isn’t overwhelmingly democratic. But, as my one vote in my one state will not jeopardize Kerry’s loss in my state, then why not vote Cobb or Nader or Bedarnik…or that online gambler/porn star ticket???

I don’t know how old you are Daniel Waldman, but your comment above leads me to guess you are wise beyond your years. Excellent advice!