Wednesday :: Mar 10, 2004

I Saw It In The Washington Post

by pessimist

Ralph Nader, newly announced as a candidate for President, has refuted numerous claims by Democrats that he had something to do with the close electoral result which allowed the Republican Party hacks, AKA SCOTUS, to arrange the first Presidential "selection" by the judiciary in the history of the United States.

The Washington Post, which too often serves as a propaganda mouthpice for conservative (read: Republican) administrations while overdoing their job as public watchdog when non-conservative (read: Democratic) administrations are in power, sometimes does something close to proper, probably by accident.

Case in point: they have released a new survey today which shows, through the results of their polling:

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, an independent, claims 3 percent. In a bit of good news for Bush, Nader is drawing essentially all of his support from Kerry, who leads Bush by 9 percentage points in a two-way matchup with the president -- an indication Nader could play the spoiler for Democrats in 2004 as he did four years ago. Underscoring that potential, nearly two-thirds of Democrats opposed Nader's decision to run, while nearly half of all Republicans supported his move.

So, Ralph, there is no logical way you can refute the charge that you had a hand in the rise to power of George Warmonger Bush. Now, sit down and watch the show like those of us who care if our country has a future as a free and independent country.


One of the readers, idiosynchronic, has some problems with my post. I'll endeavor to correct certain misimpressions.

Yep, that's right, ignore the real problem by sliming the same straw man over and over again, pessimist.

The real problem is the Democratic Party was seriously weakened by the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. I was one of the voters the Dems lost that year, as I became convinced that a third party was vital to the continued political stability of the United States. I supported John Anderson exclusively on that basis. I returned to support the Dems in '84 and '88, despite the best candidates the Dems might have selected didn't win the nominations.

The Democrats, for whatever reasons, have been, and still are, their own worst enemies. I believe that characteristic is beginning to change, for like the evolutionary adage states, adapt or die.

In 2000, while I was sympathetic to Nader's candidacy, I recognized the dangers that George W Bush represented, and swallowed hard and voted for Gore.

Back then, if Bush had been the man he represented himself to be, then I would have been wrong in not voting my conscience. We have since seen what kind of a man Bush is, and he is not the man I want to be president for the next four years.

Despite my preferences for a third party, this is not the year to push for it. We have seen what the Republican Party has done to our nation, and I for one want it stopped.

If Ralph Nader was shown to be drawing equally from both parties, then I would not care nearly as much, but since the poll shows that the Democrats are losing support exclusively, then in a year when every vote counts, I have to stand against Nader now that there is a sign that he could allow Bush to attain a legitimate electoral victory - something he desperately needs to establish any credibility with the rest of the world.

Although, I'll give you credit over the regular talking heads - you at least say " . . he {Nader}had a hand in the rise to power . . " rather than pasting the whole mess solo on Nader. The way the mainstream press says it whenever talking about Nader, you'd think the Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, butterfly ballots, illegal purges of voter registrations, & Jeb Bush have all disappeared from the public record.

The biggest part of the blame lies on Al Gore's head. If he had insisted on a full recount of Florida, instead of playing partisan politics by only counting certain precincts, then Bush would not have had a chance to steal the election through the other means you cite.

The focus this year needs to be on preventing similar methods of election theft. Have you already forgotten Diebold? ES&S? At least one CEO is on record as pledging to do whatever it takes to capture victory for the GOP. We're up against a ruthless cabal whose corruption knows no bounds. People all over the country, even some Republicans, are pressuring their state representatives for regulations designed to limit the possibility of vote fraud. There are some successes, some losses, and others still pending.

But we are already aware of this being a problem. We are also aware that Nader's support, in drawing away from the only currently-viable alternative to BushCo, is a problem. Are we to fight vigorously for the first while doing nothing about the second, which guarantees that our efforts will be in vain?

I place this contention up for discussion: Are the Greens, and other Nader supporters, not patriots? Can they, as I have, place pragmatism above idealism? Do they care enough about saving their country from great evil to put their country ahead of their goals temporarily? I certainly hope so!

The honorable cause of a viable third party is vital to America's freedom and traditions of justice, but as is stated in Ecclesiates, to everything there is a season. As far as the dream of a third party goes, this is winter.

We already see what one-party rule can do. There is no guarantee that at some point, given the same conditions currently enjoyed by the Republicans, the Democrats wouldn't be captured by an evil fringe element of the party and be turned into the conservative's worst nightmare. I don't want to see this happen anymore than I want to see legitimacy, and four more years of power, conferred upon the GOP this fall.

I'll admit it on record. Nader's Green campaign was one component in a perfect storm of an Electorial mess that got us four years of George Dubya Bush. Many, many people don't want to see Ralph run again until we feel confident that another storm, generated by other Republican % Democratic intrests, cannot destroy another election.

We agree completely on these points.

Now, in return, are Democrats going to help us build a political structure that's more accepting of 3 or more parties?

Posted by idiosynchronic at March 10, 2004 12:31 PM

No. That is up to those of us who seek a viable third party. The Green Party has been taking the right steps up to now, seeking lower offices and developing a support base, which would be the only way Green candidates can gain national office. If the Democrats were to be involved, then what creation emerges would always be a step-child of the Democratic Party, and could never develop into a free-standing entity.

Never in our past history has one party assisted in the creation of another, and I would not expect the Democrats to do so anymore than I expect the current Republican Party to play by our traditional rules. If enough people believe that there should be another party, then it will happen. Until then, we keep working toward that goal, and make the best possible alliances to keep things from getting worse before that dream can be realized.

This means that as of this election, Ralph Nader is a part of the problem and not a part of the solution, much as I would prefer otherwise. If Ralph Nader really cares about his nation and its freedom and liberties, he would assist John Kerry's campaign to defeat George Warmonger Bush and the PNAC Petroleum Pirates of the Potomac before they kill the American Experiment.

So everyone, Dem, GOP, Green, other, should ask themselves: Is my country better off than it was four years ago? Is there clear benefit to a majority of our citizens, or have we become mere vassals to a group that wishes to recreate the conditions enjoyed by the elites of the Dark Ages?

It's your country too. The time to answer those questions is now, for the time left to act is short.

pessimist :: 9:24 AM :: Comments (3) :: Digg It!