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.
Tags:

From: [identity profile] mamculuna.livejournal.com

Re: With you 100%


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.
.

Profile

mamculuna: (Default)
mamculuna

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags