Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Ralph, no one is going to choo choo choose you
I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. And I don’t regret it. My vote was a protest against the Democratic Party for selling out the liberal side of the party. Actually, selling out is not the right way to describe what the Democrats and Gore did. They discredited and marginalized us in an attempt to claim the undecided center. I felt that if Gore was going to pretend like I didn’t matter, and assured himself he could count on my vote, that he didn’t deserve it. Plus I vote in Massachusetts, so Gore was going to win anyways.
I’ll give George Bush props for this; at least he is loyal to his base. Corporate execs and white religious people vote for him, and he steps up to the plate and tries his hardest to give them what they want. To those who don’t know, this is actually the basic political strategy of chief Bush political consultant Karl Rove; not to focus on capturing the middle, but on turning out as much of your base as possible. Gore adapted a different strategy and it cost him the election in 2000. Well that and massive election fraud in the state where the opposing candidate’s brother was Governor.
This time, however, the Democrats have me back in the fold, even though Massachusetts is once again guaranteed for Kerry. I’m not voting Democrat because of anything Kerry has done, although I think he would be an effective president if he manages to win. I am back in the fold for two reasons. First, the Dean candidacy, which forced the rest of the Democrat party to take seriously whacko idealist left as an important part of their candidacy. Dean may not have won, but he did have all those young people working for him and raising money, getting people talking about ideas and excited about politics again. I think he made the Democrats as a whole realize they should be using these people as a strength, and not ignoring them and counting on their vote. Thus, this time around, I feel that the Democrats are more in touch with their constituency, and they have earned my vote.
The second reason I will vote for the Democrats is that Ralph Nader is no longer an acceptable candidate for President, if he ever was. He is a troublemaker, a muckraker, someone whose place in life is to call out both parties on the injustices of the political system, the American economic system, and our world. We need people like Ralph, but do we need him running for President? I think by doing so he is actually undermining his effectiveness. He isn’t going to win. He is drawing the ire of the Anti-Bush left. He is a joke to most moderates who think he is doing it for attention. He is clearly a joke to the right, although that hasn’t stopped them from circulating petitions to get him on the ballot in battleground states like Michigan to take votes away from Kerry. Wouldn’t he be more effective fighting for his causes as an independent lobbyist? Or might he not get his message across more effectively from a talk radio show? Maybe Fox News is hiring!
Whether or not Nader will actually hurt Kerry is debatable. Certainly he will be blamed for any close states that Kerry loses. But Nader’s numbers have halved this time around, so I think the Nader vote from 2000 breaks into two halves, disgruntled liberals like me who will vote for Kerry in 2004, and another one-two percent of the population who may not have been planning on voting for Kerry (or Bush) in the first place. The disgruntled liberals are back in the Democratic fold this time around.
I’ll give George Bush props for this; at least he is loyal to his base. Corporate execs and white religious people vote for him, and he steps up to the plate and tries his hardest to give them what they want. To those who don’t know, this is actually the basic political strategy of chief Bush political consultant Karl Rove; not to focus on capturing the middle, but on turning out as much of your base as possible. Gore adapted a different strategy and it cost him the election in 2000. Well that and massive election fraud in the state where the opposing candidate’s brother was Governor.
This time, however, the Democrats have me back in the fold, even though Massachusetts is once again guaranteed for Kerry. I’m not voting Democrat because of anything Kerry has done, although I think he would be an effective president if he manages to win. I am back in the fold for two reasons. First, the Dean candidacy, which forced the rest of the Democrat party to take seriously whacko idealist left as an important part of their candidacy. Dean may not have won, but he did have all those young people working for him and raising money, getting people talking about ideas and excited about politics again. I think he made the Democrats as a whole realize they should be using these people as a strength, and not ignoring them and counting on their vote. Thus, this time around, I feel that the Democrats are more in touch with their constituency, and they have earned my vote.
The second reason I will vote for the Democrats is that Ralph Nader is no longer an acceptable candidate for President, if he ever was. He is a troublemaker, a muckraker, someone whose place in life is to call out both parties on the injustices of the political system, the American economic system, and our world. We need people like Ralph, but do we need him running for President? I think by doing so he is actually undermining his effectiveness. He isn’t going to win. He is drawing the ire of the Anti-Bush left. He is a joke to most moderates who think he is doing it for attention. He is clearly a joke to the right, although that hasn’t stopped them from circulating petitions to get him on the ballot in battleground states like Michigan to take votes away from Kerry. Wouldn’t he be more effective fighting for his causes as an independent lobbyist? Or might he not get his message across more effectively from a talk radio show? Maybe Fox News is hiring!
Whether or not Nader will actually hurt Kerry is debatable. Certainly he will be blamed for any close states that Kerry loses. But Nader’s numbers have halved this time around, so I think the Nader vote from 2000 breaks into two halves, disgruntled liberals like me who will vote for Kerry in 2004, and another one-two percent of the population who may not have been planning on voting for Kerry (or Bush) in the first place. The disgruntled liberals are back in the Democratic fold this time around.
# posted by Marmaniac @ 9:23 PM 
