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

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.