Not now, Nader (Warning: Political Comments)

[mamculuna]

I will admit to having been a Nader supporter in 2000 [ducks flying rotten fruit] but things were different then. We had no clue that George II was a certifiable lunatic. Now we know. And persuasive as Nader's arguments are about the need for more than two parties, both in debt to corporations, the fact is that right now a defeat for Bush is a defeat for his policies. It's true that both parties are heavily in debt to corporations, and the Dems probably won't make the major changes they should make, but they don't have the indebtedness to the extreme social conservative base of Bush & Co.

I encourage no one to vote for Nader. He's making a mistake.

Comments

With you 100%

[graffitiandsara.livejournal.com]

I also voted for Nader for many of the same reasons you did, as well as the fact I truly dislike Gore, but regardless of how nice a third party would be we need to get rid of Bush...absolutely, positively, the sooner the better. So did you get in trouble with your friends for voting Nader, some of mine have accused me of putting Bush into office, even though NY went to Gore. But it's ok, they still love me.

Re: With you 100%

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Yeah, same story. My older son and exhusband (still a good friend) are especially funny about telling me the whole Bush fiasco is my fault whenever he (Dubya) does something outrageous, but hey, in South Carolina, I could have voted for a pig and it wouldn't have made much difference. This was not a swing state then! With Edwards running this time, though, it could be closer.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

I admit, I've always been the "I'll vote for any Dem who's got the best shot of beating Bush (or whoever the Repub candidate is)", and feeling a need to apologize for that to my fellow idealists. I rarely have a practical bone in my body, but I seem to grow a few in the voting booth.

The SF Bay area was so pro-Nader last time, I suppose that's why I even felt the need to make apologies then. They are really pro-Dean this time around. I guess I am, too, but when the real election comes, I'll vote "against Bush". Because sometimes it's easier to know who you don't want than who you do.

Re:

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Because sometimes it's easier to know who you don't want than who you do.

For sure it is this time!
What's funny is that I just told Sara that the people who give me the worst time (in a joking way) about having supported Nader the first time are my older son and exhusband, both longtime Bay Area residents. In fact, my ex and I put in many long hours working for the Peace and Freedom party, a sixties third party that eventually ran a pig against Hubert Humphrey.

But right now we agree--pragmatism rules. I got my idealism out by voting Kucinich in the primary.

Re:

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

Well, you know, the Bay Area lives in a kind of political isolation from the rest of the country. Out here, anything seems possible, and anything does happen. "Impeach Bush" signs are in every other window. We have a five-day gay marriage-a-thon in direct violation of state edict. Naked people march to City Hall to protest the war in Iraq.

I wouldn't call this area out of touch as some want to do, just very idealistic. They have a view of the world as it could be, and they vote and act according to it.

Re:

[wombatina.livejournal.com]

thank the gods for the bay area. i am a proud bay area baby.