home / subscribe / donate / about us / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events

 

What's Inside the New Print Edition of CounterPunch!

What Business Wanted from Welfare Reform by Stephen Pimpare: How Democrats and Corporate Think Tanks Dismantled Welfare; Poverty and Hunger Up, Federal Aid to Poor Down; The Objective: Cheapening the Cost of Labor; A Report from a Black Organizer in South Carolina by Kevin Alexander Gray: ABB versus Movement Building; Why the Nazis Banned Fractura by Alexander Cockburn. CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible. Click here to make a (tax deductible) donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now!

Call Toll Free 1-800-840-3683 or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Now Available!
Dime's Worth of Difference:
Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils


Order Here!

Today's Stories

November 1, 2004

Jason Leopold
Rummy's Failed War Plan

October 30 / 31, 2004

JoAnn Wypijewski
The Long March and the Million Worker March

Winslow T. Wheeler
Spartacus Tells All

Bruce Anderson
Notes from the Big Empty: When the Hippies Invaded NoCal

Vicente Navarro
They Worked for Franco: How Sec. of State Cordell Hull and Nobel Laureate Camilo Jose Cela Collaborated with the Fascist Regime

Robin Blackburn
How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security

Greg Bates
A Question of Character: What Makes Nader Tick?

Nancy Welch
The American Health Care Crisis: an Interview with Dr. David Himmelstein

William Lind
Election Day: Which Menendez Brother Will You Vote For?

Brian Cloughley
Uzbekistan and Bush Hypocrisies

Suzan Mazur
Oops They Did It Again: the NYTs the Paper of Record and Rip-Offs

Greg Moses
Standing at the Graves of Iraq

John Chuckman
Osama's Endorsement

Richard Oxman
Why Not Accept Osama's Offer?

Ken Avidor
Landscape of Fear: When Ugly is Suspicious

Niranjan Ramakrishnan
Bush, Ba'ath and Beyond

Hope Bastian
Strangling Cuba's Economy

P. Sainath
Tower of Gabble: Toward a Sustainable Rhetoric

Dave Zirin
Bush League: Why MLB Owners Support the Prez

Jon Swift
The Dry Drunk Thang: Put a Cork in It

Ron Jacobs
The Joke's on Me: a Review of Bob Dylan's Chronicles Vol. 1

Alexander Billet
Taking Theatre Back: Are the States Ready for "Stuff Happens"?

Poets' Basement
Jones, Laymon, Norris, Ford and Albert

Website of the Weekend
The Origins of Halloween

October 29, 2004

Harry Browne
No Justice for Peace Activist in County Clare

October 28, 2004

Forrest Hylton
"The Gas is Ours:" Bolivia's Ghosts of October

Col. Dan Smith
Rebellion in the Ranks

Alan Maass
Jon Stewart v. the Pundits

Ron Jacobs
Ecstasy in Red Sox Nation

Alexander Cockburn
Kerrycrats and the War

 

October 27, 2004

Jules Rabin
Crammed with Distressful Politics

Dave Lindorff
Bulgegate: the Lies Continue

Katherine Van Tassel
On the Home Front: Both Parties Ignore Working Parents

Jeffrey St. Clair
The Bi-Partisan Politics of Oil

 

October 26, 2004

Brian Cloughley
Three Weddings and Lots of Funerals: Atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan

William Blum
Fear Factors

Lenni Brenner
The 1964 Berkeley Free Speech Movement: Lessons for 2004

Ben Tripp
The Chicken Salad Election

Fidel Castro
After the Fall

Greg Bates
The Nation's Flawed Calculus

Walter Brasch
Gag the Public: the War on Dissent

Niranjan Ramakrishnan
An Open Letter to Pat Buchanan

Mickey Z.
Rumble in the Jungle at 30: Ali, Foreman and the Congo

Amir Taheri
The Boom in Conspiracy Theories

Alexander Billet
Say It Ain't So, Bruce!: the Boss Endorses Kerry

Doug Giebel
The Religion of G.W. Bush

Kathleen Christison
Why I Liked Thomas Friedman's Latest Column Before I Didn't

 

October 25, 2004

Ralph Nader
Letter from a Minnesota Highway

Werther
West Texas Wahabbism

Dave Zirin
Boston's Killer Cops: Death of a Fan

Fred Gardner
Pot Shots: Oregon Revokes Dr. Leveque's License

Omar Barghouti
Executing Another Child in Rafah

William J. Nottingham
Lori Berenson's Story

John Chuckman
A Foolish Consistency

Uri Avnery
On the Road to Civil War

 

October 22 / 24, 2004

Alexander Cockburn
You Can't Blame Nader for This

Rev. William Alberts
On Bended Knee: Faith-Based Deceptions

Willliam A. Cook
Killing for Christ

Saul Landau
George W. Bush: a Man of His Words?

Bill Quigley
I Held the Bullet in My Palm: Masked Haitian Police Shoot Children While Arresting Priest

Christopher Brauchli
Seal It With a Frown: What Compassionate Conservativism Really Means

William S. Lind
Fallujah and the Moral Level of War

Sharon Smith
Guilt Trippers for Kerry

Greg Bates
Kerrynomics: "Hurt the Ones Who Vote for Us"

Justin E.H. Smith
Is Lesser Evilism a Compromise with Evil?

Rebecca Evans
Tarnished Legacy: Pinochet and the Chilean Military

Mike Whitney
Al Hurra TV: the Second Invasion

M. Junaid Alam
Purchasing Individuality in America

David Krieger
Nuclear Non-Proliferation: Examining the Policies of Bush and Kerry

David J. Ledermann
The Emperor's New Crumbs

Lawrence Reichard
Same Old FBI Story

Website of the Weekend
Lie Girls: the Real Coalition of the Willling

 

 

October 21, 2004

Ben Tripp
The Undecided Voter Examined

Joshua Frank
Kerry and the Environment:
It's Not Easy Pretending to be Green

Stan Cox
What the Left Doesn't Get About Small Businesses

Bill Martinez
State Depart and Cuban Visas: Only Anti-Castro Agitators Need Apply

Mark Engler
The War and Globalization

Lina Britto and Lucia Suarez
Bolivia: a Year After the October Insurrection

Website of the Day
Two Pampered Children of Wealth

 

 

October 20, 2004

Yitzhak Laor
"Did You Two Squabble?": a Bullet Fired for Every Palestinian Child

Jason Leopold
Sinclair Broadcasting's Air War: a Long History of Journalistic Deception

Jesse Sharkey
A Teacher's Account of How Military Recruiters Prey on High School Students

Col. Dan Smith
Choking Free Speech About the Draft

Dr. Teresa Whitehurst
Using My Religion

David Vest
If Bush Wins, Blame Me

Jack Random
The Jackson 17: Reflections on a Mutiny

Ron Jacobs
Time to Kick It Up a Notch

James Brittain
Plan Patriota and the FARC: a Change in the Countryside?

Christopher Dols
Bombing Madison: Michael Moore's Fright Fest

Dave Lindorff
First They Came for the Nurses...

Website of the Day
Banana Republican Catalogue

 

October 19, 2004

Jeffrey St. Clair
Party Favors: the Political Business of Terry McAuliffe

Jeff Taylor
Confessions of a Swing State Voter

Matt Vidal
American Myopia: "More Money in Your Pocket"

Victor Kattan
"It's Not Who You're Against; It's Who You're For": Palestine Takes Center Stage At Euro Social Forum

William Loren Katz
What Goes Around Comes Around

Sean Carter
O'Reilly Should Shut Up About Extortion Claiims

CounterPunch Wire
Who's Really in Bed with Republican Funders: Kerry or Nader?

 

 

October 18, 2004

Saul Landau
Facts and Lies; Slogans and Truth

Dave Lindorff
Bulletin on the Bush Bulge

Diane Christian
Sheep and Goats: On the Language of Goodness

Greg Bates / Dave Lindorff
Betting on War: a Wager on the Fallout of a Kerry Presidency

Uri Avnery
Ariel Sharon's Philosophy

Peter LaVenia
Leaving the Greens So Soon? a Response to Josh Frank

Mike Whitney
O'Reilly at the Whipping Post

Elaine Cassel
The Other War: Civil Liberties Three Years After 9/11

 

October 16 / 17, 2004

Alexander Cockburn
The Free Speech Movement and Howard Stern

Leslie Brill
Unmerciful Judge, Merry Executioners: the Death Penalty as the True Measure of Bush's Character

Jules Rabin
Reckoning Deaths in an Agitated World

Dave Lindorff
About the Bush Bulge: Was There a Pucker in That Jacket or Was the President Just Glad to be There?

Peter Linebaugh
Judging Judges: a Few Pages from The Mirror of Justices

Gary Leupp
Iran and Syria: How to Effect Regime Change and Expand the Empire

M. Shahid Alam
America, Imagine This!

Ron Jacobs
Trying to Cross Lake Champlain

Fred Gardner
The Flu Vaccine Question: How Bush Blew It

Jenna Orkin
The Toxic Legacy of 9/11

Dave Zirin
Name the DC Baseball Team: Contest Results

David Hamilton
Alone and Exposed: Bush as a Strong Leader?

Ralph Nader
Criticizing Israel is Not Anti-Semitism

Doug Giebel
Thinking the Unthinkable

Mark Engler
Crimes in Freedom's Name: Dick Cheney's El Salvador

Derek Tyner
Blacks Didn't Get the Vote by Voting: an Interview With Clarence Thomas on the Million Worker March

Evan Jones
Gimme That Ole Time Religion: Cash and "The Mind of the South"

Poets' Basement
LaMorticella, Klipschutz and Albert

Website of the Weekend
No More Bush Girls

 

October 15, 2004

Paul Craig Roberts
Where Did These "Conservatives" Come From?: The Brownshirting of America

Laura Carlsen
Wal-Mart vs. the Pyramids of the Sun and Moon

Greg Bates
Empire of Insanity: Kerry's Iraq Troop Numbers

Michael Donnelly
News from a Swing State: Does Anyone Here Have a Spine?

Katherine Lahey
The Venezuelan "Threat": Why Do Kerry and Bush Fear Hugo Chavez?

Robert Jensen / Pat Youngblood
Election Day Fears

Leah Caldwell
From Supermax to Abu Ghraib: the Masterminds of Torture and Abuse

Website of the Day
An Anti-Billionaire Policy? Why That Would Be Economic Racism

 

 

October 14, 2004

Darcy Richardson
The Other Progressive Candidate: the Lonely Crusade of Walt Brown

Willliam A. Cook
Turning Myths into Truth

Laura Santina
Water, Women and War

Evelyn Pringle
Free Speech Banned by Big Pharma: What You Can't Say About Drug Importation

Alan Farago
Lessons from Nature

Rep. Maxine Waters
A Letter to Colin Powell on Haiti

Nicole Colson
Maimed for Oil and Empire

 

 

 

October 13, 2004

Bishop Thomas Gumbleton and Bill Quigley
Aftermath of a Coup: The Other Disaster in Haiti

Sharon Smith
Barak O-Bomb-a?: Democrats Target Iran

Christopher Brauchli
God and the Bush Administration

Mike Whitney
The Real Meaning of the Hamdi Case

Paul de Rooij
Amnesty International: a False Beacon?

Website of the Day
Operation Truth

 

 

October 12, 2004

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
"Indian Country"

Greg Bates
The Year of Voting Dangerously: a Survey Request of Nader Voters in Swing States

Steven Conn
Progressives as Pawns: Kerry's War on Nader

Jason Leopold
Under Cheney, Halliburton Helped Saddam Siphon Billions from UN Oil-for-Food Program

Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy
Time for a Change of Course

Timothy J. Freeman
Dying for a Mistake

Pierre Tristam
Deconstructing Bush

Niranjan Ramakrishnan
The 2nd Debate: the Blurring of Act and Audience

Bill and Kathleen Christison
Israel as Sideshow

Website of the Day
John Kerry's Personal Off-Shore Tax Shelters

 

October 11, 2004

Robert Fisk
Iraq: Unforgivable Betrayals and Broken Promises

Kevin Pina
The Untold Story of Aristide's Departure from Haiti

Patrick Gavin
Rethinking Columbus Day

Chris Floyd
Tribes with Flags in the New Afghanistan

Daniel Wolff
Radioactive Money: Entergy, Political Cash and America's Most Dangerous Nuclear Plant

Walter Brasch
The Only Ones Who Believe Saddam Had WMDs are Bush, Cheney...and 40% of All Americans

Mike Whitney
The Phony Afghan Elections: Ballot of the Disappearing Ink

Ari Shavit
"He Talks to Condi Rice Every Day": an Interview with Sharon's Lawyer

Paul Craig Roberts
The Debates and the Big Lie

Website of the Day
Dylan's Greatest Recording?

 

 

October 9 / 10, 2004

Alexander Cockburn
"There Are No Innocents"

Paul de Rooij
Northern Ireland is Still the Issue: a Conversation with Gerry Adams

M. Shahid Alam
Making Sense of Our Times

Laura Carlsen
Protest and Populism in Latin America

Fred Gardner
Pot Shots: ASA Goes to Court

Col. Dan Smith
Bush's Credibility Gap

Paul Craig Roberts
Faith-Based Economics

Greg Bates
What If Nader Critics Get What They Demand?

Joshua Frank
Cobb, the Greens and the Collapse of the Left

Felice Pace
Wilderness, Politics and the Oligarchy: How the Pew Charitable Trust is Smothering the Grassroots Environmental Movement

Walter A. Davis
Of Pynchon, Thanatos and Depleted Uranium

William A. Cook
The Agony of Colin Powell

Phyllis Pollack
Twas No Crank Call Love Affair: London Calling, 25 Years Later

Poets' Basement
Klipschutz, Albert, Ford

Website of the Weekend
Abu Ghraib: the Taguba Annexes

 

October 8, 2004

Jennifer Loewenstein
The Israeli Invasion of Gaza

Moshe Adler
Edwards' Gambit: He Hoped No One Would Notice the Similarities

David Swanson
Media Blackout: Press Continues to Ignore Labor's Opposition to Iraq War

Dave Zirin
CounterPunch Contest: Let's Name the New DC Baseball Team!

Rep. Ron Paul
The Draft is a Form of Slavery

William S. Lind
Keeping Our SA Up

Samar Assad
Kerry v. Bush: No Difference When It Comes to Israel / Palestine

Jim Ingalls and Sonali Kolhatkar
The Elections in Afghanistan

 

 

October 7, 2004

Dave Lindorff
All Out of Volunteers: A Draft is in the Air

Masha Hamilton
Fear in Kandahar

Christopher Brauchli
Master of Corruption: the Ripening Scandals of Tom Delay

Jason Leopold
Is There Still Time to Impeach Bush?

Bruce K. Gagnon
Bombing the Panhandle: Fighting the Pentagon in Rural Florida

Meredith Kolodner
Where is the Urgency?: The Anti-War Movement's Election Year Challenge

 

 

October 6, 2004

Jeffrey St. Clair
"Please, Dude, Can I Take Them Out?": Targeting Civilians in Fallujah

Ron Jacobs
Going Nuclear: the Ghost of Edward Teller Lives

Michael Colby
The National Flip-Flop: Suddenly Bush is Unfit to Lead?

Tarif Abboushi
More of the Same: Israel Wins the Debates

Matthew Behrens
Canadian Firms Profit from Iraqi Blood

Mike Whitney
Rethinking WMDs

John Pilger
Stealing Diego Garcia

Ben Tripp
Kerry's "Triumph"

Kevin McKiernan
Cheney's Poison Lab: Wrong Time, Wrong Target

Patrick Cockburn
Elections Will Not End the Fighting in Iraq

Website of the Day
Is There an Islamic Problem?

October 5, 2004

Anthony Loewenstein
Rupert Murdoch and the Marginals: "Personally Creating Outcomes"

Mark Clinton and Tony Udell
The Suicide of an Iraq War Veteran

Greg Bates
Trading Idiots: an Open Letter to Eric Alterman

Dave Lindorff
What's the Frequency, Karl?

Norm Dixon
Why Washington Won't Save Darfur Villagers

Larry Kearney
God Talk and Burning Children

Bill Linville
Dirty Politics in the Land of "Clean" Government

Gary Leupp
What Edwards Should Ask Cheney

Website of the Day
A Guide to Halliburton for Tonight's Debate

 

October 4, 2004

Diane Christian
The Gates of Hell

Joshua Frank
An Interview with David Cobb

Doug Giebel
Incurious George: What If Bush Didn't Lie?

John Chuckman
Strange Victory: Sen. Obvious and the Pathetic Lump

Ramzy Baroud
Reverse the Picture: Anatomy of a Palestinian Outrage

Julia Stein
Remembering Mario Savio and the FSM

Sean Donahue
Outsourcing Terror: Kerry and Special Forces

Website of the Day
Mapping Mt. St. Helens as She Rocks

 

October 2 / 3. 2004

Paul Wright
John Kerry on Criminal Justice

Kathleen and Bill Christison
An Exchange with Israeli Historian Bennie Morris

Kathie Helmkamp
My Son Trent: a Marine Who Doesn't Want to Kill

Phillip Cryan
Indigenous Mobilization in Colombia

Lenni Brenner
The First Ex-Catholic Saint: Memories of Mario Savio

Fred Gardner
Pot Shots: In Case You Missed "Montel"

Ron Jacobs
It Did Happen Here: When Neo-Nazis Terrorized Olympia

Ben Tripp
Sticker Shock

William S. Lind
The Grand Illusion: Iraqi Security Forces

Dave Zirin
The Swindle of the Century: Baseball Comes to DC

Dave Lindorff
Lies from the Great Debate

Luscon Pierre-Charles
Haiti's Elections: a High-Tech Sham is Underway

Zoe Moskovitz & Sasha Kramer
Separating Lies from Truth About Haiti

Nelson P. Valdes
Habana Night vs. Latin American Scholars in Vegas: 61 Banned Cuban Academics

Alan Farago
The "Ownership Society" and the End of the Everglades

Nancy Haley
What is the Historical Jesus Trying to Tell Us?

Alex Billet
Long Live The Clash: London Still Calling After 25 Years

Steve Fesenmaier
Save and Burn: The War on Libraries

Poets' Basement
Smith, Holt, Albert

 

October 1, 2004

Steve Breyman
Kerry's Missed Opportunities

Rose Gentle
My Son Died for a Lie

Lee Sustar
Iran in the Crosshairs

Ralph Nader
What We Didn't Hear at the Debate: Where's the Exit Strategy?

Walter Andrews
We Are Less Secure Now Than Ever

Mike Whitney
Pandora's Government

Mickey Z.
Debate This

Saul Landau
The Iraq Invasion: Lessons from the Pinochet Cases

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hot Stories

Alexander Cockburn
Behold, the Head of a Neo-Con!

Subcomandante Marcos
The Death Train of the WTO

Norman Finkelstein
Hitchens as Model Apostate

Steve Niva
Israel's Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?

Dardagan, Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians

Steve J.B.
Prison Bitch

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda in the Iraq War

Wendell Berry
Small Destructions Add Up

CounterPunch Wire
WMD: Who Said What When

Cindy Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter I Can't Hear From

Gore Vidal
The Erosion of the American Dream

Francis Boyle
Impeach Bush: A Draft Resolution

Click Here for More Stories.

 

 

Subscribe Online

 

November 1, 2004

"Pull the Plug and Let the Comatose Party Expire"

Swing-State Nader Voter Survey Results

By GREG BATES

Why would swing state voters vote Nader? I posted a series of 11 questions, and took responses from October 12 to October 27. My aim was to listen to Nader voters in what the voters considered to be swing states. This is not a scientific survey-I wanted to hear what they had to say, not measure how many thought what. Think of it as reality TV meets polling.

I also wanted to give these swing state voters a voice. As one wrote, "As a Nader voter, I am not used to being asked my opinion -- in fact, I'm used to being screamed at and lectured ... and the howls and cries of wounded Democrats tends to drown out my voice at any rate."

Finally, I wanted to challenge those who think voting Nader in a swing state is a bad idea. You can disagree with some or all of the reasoning. Maybe you disagree with some who say it has to get worse before it gets better. (I sure hope they are wrong!) Maybe you think the difference between Bush and Kerry is far greater than those quoted below. Fine. The question is, what do you do about it? You can ignore them, belittle them, attack their candidate, attempt to instill fear, try and block the access of their candidate(s) on the ballot.

I suggest a more pragmatic view that I have mentioned elsewhere: as the Democrats relentlessly abandon their base, an increasing number of voters may look elsewhere. Most of the respondents said they wouldn't vote Kerry regardless of whether voting Nader was on the list. One respondent, for example, said there were 12 candidates for president in their state, and they ranked Kerry 11th and Bush 12th. . That tells me they want an alternative. It's axiomatic that political groups will attempt to fill the space the Democrats have abandoned. You can either join them, or try and pull the Democrats toward the constituency they once claimed to represent. Either choice strikes me as a more rational response than personalizing the issue by attacking Nader or his candidacy.

I received 132 valid responses and about 20 that didn't qualify (weren't voting Nader, weren't in what they considered swing states, etc.)

Answers came from

Arizona 1
Arkansas 1
California 1
Colorado 6
Florida 8
Illinois 1
Iowa 2
Maine 3
Michigan 11
Minnesota 11
Missouri 1
Nevada 2
New Jersey 2
New Mexico 5
Ohio 14
Oregon 24
Pennsylvania 13
Tenn 1
Washington 11
West Virginia 1
Wisconsin 13

Since I let the respondents judge whether they were in swing states, they may not be from what others consider swing states. I counted as valid several responses that planned to vote Cobb or another candidate because the issue they face is the same: why vote for someone other than Kerry when that vote could cost Kerry the election?

I selected responses based not on whether I agreed with them but whether they interested me. These answers don't represent my views. Those quoted for an answer to one question were rarely quoted again for other questions.

Some questions have more answers selected than others. I tried to get varied and interesting answers, and a few questions received mostly repetitive answers. For example, the second question about whether you would vote Kerry if Nader wasn't in the race drew a nearly uniform "no" with a few maybes and a yes or two. So not many are quoted on question 2. Similarly on 6 and 8, about how the Democrats and progressives trying to remove Nader from the ballot or convince you not to vote nader, most respondents said the efforts enraged them and made them more determined to vote Nader. So again, the uniformity of response made me quote fewer respondents.

The symbol ### separates different people's answers to each question.

Below is the list of questions followed by selected responses

1. Do you live in a swing state? Which one?

2. Are you still planning to vote Nader? Why?

3. If Nader wasn't running, would you vote for Kerry? Explain.

4. Assuming you plan to vote Nader, do you think your vote could help tip the election to Bush by taking a vote from Kerry?

5. Are you aware of the costs of another Bush presidency? If yes, what accounts for your determination to vote Nader?

6. Various organizations opposed to Nader's run have been running ads and broadcasting petitions to convince people such as yourself to vote for Kerry. What impact, if any, have these efforts had on your thinking?

7. Is there something those groups could tell you that would sway your vote?

8. How have the efforts to keep Nader off the ballot affected your decision?

9. Some of Nader's allies from 2000 have said his candidacy this year is a strategic mistake. Do you agree? Explain.

10. Let's suppose that you and others vote Nader in a swing state, Kerry loses that state which he would have won if the Nader voters had backed him and that loss costs Kerry the election. What is your thinking about this outcome?

11. Any other relevant thoughts?

Many thanks to all who responded.

Before going through the selections I thought I would offer one response in its entirety, one I particularly liked, to give you a sense of how it is to read them in their as a whole. Robin Hering agreed to be identified by name.

1. Do you live in a swing state? Which one?

- Yes

- Colorado

2. Are you still planning to vote Nader? Why?

- I trust Ralph Nader

- His positions align perfectly with mine

- People around the world can trust him

3. If Nader wasn't running, would you vote for Kerry? Explain.

- Yes

- No other reasonable options

4. Assuming you plan to vote Nader, do you think your vote could help tip the election to Bush by taking a vote from Kerry?

- Yes

The voters I work to influence live in rural, northeastern Colorado. The demographic there consists of traditional Republicans, disenfranchised citizens, Alex Jones fans, 1st amendment types, and depressed and exploited Hispanic citizens. I can get "Republican" votes for Nader.

We have Resolution 36 on our ballot this year ­ electoral votes proportional to candidate votes - which stems the troublesome Winner Take All results.

If elections were clean, we could have an altogether different discussion.

5. Are you aware of the costs of another Bush presidency? If yes, what accounts for your determination to vote Nader?

If President Bush wins:

Worst case: We see a repeat of all the dynamics that enabled the rise of the Third Reich.

Best case: We find out sooner whether Americans can weather and overcome the storm of assaults on our constitutional republic. Citizens will have to decide if their Constitution means anything and whether they're willing to defend it.

I believe criminal behavior should be tried through due process of law, not popularity contests.

I'm willing to take the chance on our system of law and Americans who's allegiance is to our Constitution.

6. Various organizations opposed to Nader's run have been running ads and broadcasting petitions to convince people such as yourself to vote for Kerry. What impact, if any, have these efforts had on your thinking?

My vote for Ralph Nader will now be in part a vindication vote.

 

7. Is there something those groups could tell you that would sway your vote?

That John Kerry and Ralph Nader have secretly been collaborating for years to create a better country and that I only have to refer to VoteNader.org to see Ralph's request of me to vote for John Kerry.

8. How have the efforts to keep Nader off the ballot affected your decision?

Convinced me once and for all that there is no hope whatsoever in supporting the Democrats. Their behavior reveals their corruption and subscription to the idea that we can lower our standards instead of taking the high road.

I'm going to join Ralph Nader's new party, if he initiates one.

9. Some of Nader's allies from 2000 have said his candidacy this year is a strategic mistake. Do you agree? Explain.

Ralph Nader's candidacy is strategically brilliant. The process is broken, and changing presidents won't repair it. I'll send my 10/12/04 letter to Counterpunch.org, "Nader "Personality Cult" - What About the Rest of Us?" which supports this, in a separate note.

10. Let's suppose that you and others vote Nader in a swing state, Kerry loses that state which he would have won if the Nader voters had backed him and that loss costs Kerry the election. What is your thinking about this outcome?

Please see my response to Question 5.

11. Any other relevant thoughts?

I believe that the establishment, including his father's people, has already taken measures to remove President Bush from the stage. I could elaborate on all my observations of the dynamics, but the best was James Baker's orchestration of the failed first debate.

I've already decided to resign from my 26-year career at a Fortune 500 company and

- Organize volunteer networks to support the ACLU and other peace and justice attroneys on civil rights; support NLG and others to go after our war criminals, and take some law classes.

- Dedicate myself to cleaning House and Senate at mid-terms.

We need a conference of key players right after elections to decide if we should take over the Democratic Party, or form a new third citizens' party, or if third parties should coalesce temporarily to overcome the corporate parties. That needs to be decided immediately so we don't fracture further and so we can develop a strategy that will work.

Here's the letter Robin sent:

I thought I might offer a word or two in response to something I heard recently about Nader supporters as a personality cult.

Well, here's me. Mom, twenty-six-year career at a Fortune 500 company, reasonable salary, project and program management experience, work in a global community with co-workers in countries around the world.

I've done years and years of community service work, always wondering why things weren't getting any better, never understanding that there was an illegitimate root cause of the suffering of fellow citizens, and people around the world.

I've been content in an affluent community, under-informed by the mainstream press. But my family has grown, and I have time to inform myself, to read and research. I know my country is in trouble, and it's not because of terrorists. I don't understand everything St. Clair, Bates, Goff, Vidal, Cockburn, et. al., are saying, but I trust them and I'm getting it.

My grocer, a hard-working small businessman, came to me just days ago, said he'd registered to vote and would vote for Ralph Nader. To my recent house party for Nader came a Republican independent CPA. Americans like me are everywhere.

I'm stumbling through this election cycle naïve and inexperienced, but I've got my eye on the goal regardless.

I support Ralph Nader because he has an allegiance is to justice, peace, liberty and the law; he's been more effective with Congress on behalf of the people than any president, without benefit of office; he has the only reasonable approach to reducing global chaos and he's the only candidate the world can trust. I want to have a nice country, and I want our Constitution respected by Congress.

I understand all the rationale behind supporting John Kerry, a relatively decent man. But I know there's no chance of getting closer to my goals by supporting him. There exists the real possibility that during a Kerry administration the country will go back to their dogmatic slumber.

Supporting Ralph Nader and being vocal about it gives me an opportunity to remind citizens that presidents don't get very far without the support of Congress, that Congress has enabled the "Bush" agenda instead of leveraging their power and counterbalancing the power of the executive branch; that citizen's grievances really ought to be with our Congress; that members of Congress are entrenched in empire and that a good citizen's true goals ought to be replacing them, not necessarily the president. Everyone has their eye on the razzle-dazzle candidates for the presidency while Congress picks their pockets and ruins our county. I take on California Recall-deluded citizens at every opportunity.

Supporting Ralph Nader, I have the opportunity to remind all citizens that they can vote for the Red Team or for the Blue Team, but it's all friendly team owners at the top.

Supporting Ralph Nader I have an opportunity to let citizens know that their "he can't win" attitude is disappointing; that their attitude stems from years and years of "we can't" which un-American and shameful.

Finally, on some occasions, and running the risk of being accused of being a conspiracy theorist, I suggest that John Kerry was selected for us by the establishment in Washington with the assistance of the corporate press, that they'll undercut President Bush in October, and that it looks like even his father's people are working toward that end. The empire giveth and the empire taketh away. There is plenty of evidence for that.

This is the best year for Ralph Nader to run for president. What a shame all the peace and justice people are letting this opportunity slip through their fingers.

Thank you for all your hard work. Counterpunch is a beacon of light.

Robin Hering
Niwot, CO

p.s. My parents - dad a retired Army officer - support me. Mom used to talk about the admirable and ardent Ralph Nader when we were kids.

Onto the selected responses to the questions.

1. Do you live in a swing state? Which one?

See above

2. Are you still planning to vote Nader? Why?

Yes. Why? I don't want blood on my hands -- the blood of innocent Iraqis, Palestinians and American soldiers. I refuse to vote for a candidate who is pro-war, who wants to add troops and continue the murder and occupation of innocent civilians.
###
Yes. Because Kerry supports the Bush agenda, US imperialism and is a tool of corporate interests. It's the power of social movements that enacts change, not electing a politician (especially not such a thoroughly corrupted one as Kerry).
###
Yes. Removal of US corporate and military presence from Iraq, single payer health care, support of Palestinian rights, reducing military budget, backing of alternative energy.
###
I am undecided. He is not on the ballot here, so he'd be a write in vote. Historically, third parties have made a huge difference in bringing up issues such as women's rights, slavery, workers rights, etc. I think we desperately need a viable third party, or we'll just have more of the same. There is not much difference between Bush and Kerry.
###
Yes. Several reasons. (1) The number one issue is the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq and what it represents as a foreign policy. Kerry supports this "war" and for the most part, the policy upon which it is based. (2) Kerry supports the concept of the "War on Terrorism", which has resulted in not only us being less safe but the most hated government on the planet. (3) Kerry supports all the international "trade" agreements which collectively are more anti-worker and anti-environment than any of the horrible Bush agenda items Democrats insist we should be worried about. (4) Democrats sat idly by, if not actively supported the stolen election of 2000, all the while wailing about how Nader cost Gore the Presidency; they joined Republicans across the country in modifying or ignoring state laws that would have prevented Bush from being on the ballot because of the late RNC; meanwhile, they waste time, energy and resources, which could have been spent organizing and recruiting voters, on blatantly undemocratic efforts to keep Nader off the ballot. (5) Kucinich proves beyond any doubt that the Democratic Party is lost and cannot be fixed from within. I could really go on and on. What's the point?
###
Yes (write in) first he is the only anti-war candidate who is running a campaign in all 50 states. He is the person who got me involved in politics, before 2000 I couldn't even name my reps. I know Nader is pulling others into the political spectrum.
###
Yes. For more than 40 years I was a sleepwalking Democrat, except 1972 when I voted for Gus Hall. Being from South Dakota, I knew George McGovern was no friend of the people. Then a couple years ago I discovered Dennis Kucinich. I worked very hard (upwards of 1000 hours) in his campaign. I now feel his campaign was a ploy to keep progressives in the DP. There is only one person left for me to truly support ­ Ralph Nader. I am proud to say both of my adult sons came to that realization in 2000. I still wore the D and voted for Al Gore.
###
i am green up to my elbows (though I believe that cobb has essentially made the greens inconsequential and has not pushed issues out there that represent me and my values and he and others have hijacked the party for democrat's benefit). When Nader speaks he promotes the living wage, and importantly people educating themselves so that they can truly self govern; these are some of the values I share and respect. During a talk this spring in Oregon, he said in response to a question, (and I paraphrase) "and let me say something about patriotism. My (his) mother taught (him) 'if you love your country, work to make it more loveable.'" This is why he might get my vote. Bush and Kerry both represent the ruling class, in my mind, they promote the idea that corporate America and the rich, businesses, and capitalist greedy folk should make decisions and "lead." they in my generalized opinion, lead in a way that does not respect the world's, or our own humanity as Americans. for example, by bush telling us to "shop" to show patriotism; Kerry promising to "squash the terrorists" and be tougher on n Korea, Syria, Palestine and Iran than bush. neither man really addressing the abject poverty, spiritual poverty and lack of basic safety for all in America eg. shelter, food clean air, water, free speech. I am angry about "evils" too but I recognize and admit the complexities of facing problems like terrorism that we have helped create with our selfish greed.
###

3. If Nader wasn't running, would you vote for Kerry? Explain.

Tough choice! Kerry has just been dubbed the Newest neocon. How much worse would he be without Nader's pressure?
###
Kerry's position on Israel/Palestine is as bad as Bush's. He voted for the Iraq war (both my senators, Levin and Stabenow, were decent enough to vote against the resolution). He voted for the Patriot Act and NAFTA. He will do nothing to change the direction of America's policies other than make them more palatable to would-be allies and those elites that don't care for the style of the insolent rube presently in office.
###
No. I can not support Kerry's vow to continue the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
###
No. Kerry is not good enough. Bush is horrible, and Kerry is better than Bush, but Kerry is not good enough. Kerry is horrible, too. In fact, I can no longer "spill over" for Democrats. They are a failed party, incapable of progressive (or even left-leaning) leadership, and no longer effective (if they ever were) at holding off the agenda of the Republicans. (Remember the Nader-less elections of 2002?)
###
I am also extremely disappointed in the Democratic party's militant campaign to keep Nader off the ballot (especially in Oregon, where local Democratic party actively encouraged registered Democrats to attend Nader's nominating convention and not sign the petition to get Nader on the ballot - and then Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury invalidated just enough signatures from a final attempt at getting Nader on the ballot after those signatures were already validated by County elections officers). Sorry for this rambling second answer, but it alone is enough for me to not vote for the Democratic Party candidates for some time.
###
I would NOT vote for Kerry, he will be a killer, just like Clinton or any other US president. In favor of capitalist interests over the people they are supposed to represent. I refuse to be counted on the side of someone whose morals are that far off.
###
No. My 2nd choice is Michael Badnarik. Kerry is my 11th choice, Bush my 12th (there are 12 candidates on the ballot or certified write-ins in Ohio). After Democratic efforts to keep Nader off the ballot in many states, I have decided to vote for minor parties exclusively unless there are only 2 candidates on the ballot. Furthermore, I cannot send a protest to the Democrats if I vote for their candidate. The only way I can show my discontent is by voting for someone else.
###
LIKE I'D VOTE TO BE IMMOLATED.
###
Absolutely! For me, voting for Nader is not about philosophical purity, making a statement of protest or salving my conscience (although it's true that I couldn't live with myself if I voted for Kerry). If I were going to vote for the candidate who best represented my positions on the issues, it would be one of the smaller socialist candidates, not Nader. For me, voting for Nader is first and foremost about STRATEGY.

Voting for Nader is not just a symbolic gesture, it is a concrete exercise of political power--in this case, the power to withhold my vote, which is the only real power the electoral system gives us lowly citizens. Using this power is the only way I can impose real consequences on the lily-livered, Republican-wannabe jackass-party guys who have sold me down the river far, far too many times. And as anybody who has ever dealt with an alcoholic or parented a toddler knows, the only way to get someone's negative behavior to change is to make sure they experience negative consequences for it. Not "punishment," but the natural consequence that the misbehaver has brought upon him or herself, as the Democrats will have brought it upon themselves if they lose this election.

I have heard lots of arguments for voting against Bush (no argument there--I don't plan to vote for Bush!) but I have not yet heard anybody make the case for why voting for Kerry makes sense strategically. "Anybody but Bush" is not a strategy, it is an abject and complete surrender, an unmistakable message to the Democratic party that there are now no limits to the amount of abuse we will accept from them. The idea that we should unite to elect Kerry now, and hold him accountable once he's in office--this is not a strategy either, but a ridiculous and dangerous fantasy. I say this as a veteran of 8 years and 3 jail terms protesting Clinton, during which time he did not once listen to us, ever.

Strategic withholding of one's vote can work with any third-party candidate, but Nader's candidacy promises to have the most impact. Sad to say, he continues to be the only political figure who has both nation-wide name recognition AND an unimpeachable reputation for personal integrity, not to mention almost a half century of real public policy experience. Plus he scares the liberals to death, which means he must be doing something right. Michael Moore didn't get down on his knees to beg Roger Calero of the Socialist Workers' Party not to run.
###
Probably. I was not impressed by any of the other third party candidates. I think the Greens were foolish not to support Nader. It is more important to vote for the best person you can find to lead the free world then it is to build a party.

###

4. Assuming you plan to vote Nader, do you think your vote could help tip the election to Bush by taking a vote from Kerry?

I really do not care if my vote swings on way or the other because to me, they are one and same when it comes to foreign policy issues. There are enough registered Democrats voting for Bush(7.7 million in 2000) that voting for the person that reflects everything I want in a candidate is okay.
###
No. Despite what the polls say, I think Florida should be easily won by Kerry as long as the ballots are reasonably counted this time.
###
I wish this were true. I think the best we can hope for is to make the Democrats lose because they have moved to the right. Although I think life will get slightly better in this country under Kerry, it will not get enough better to make it worth supporting him. I hope he loses.
###
Yes, and that's fine by me. Bush has evil plans and the means to accomplish them; Kerry has no plan and is a ghost of a candidate who will say anything at any time, I trust him LESS than Bush.

###
Perhaps. But I could care less. Frankly, Kerry and the Democrats deserve to never win another election; the only honorable thing left for Democrats to do, I think, is to resign en masse and put the finishing touches on this country's historic slide into single party dictatorship. After all, weren't the Cold Warriors fueled by their underlying jealously of the power totalitarian regimes were able to wield over their subject peoples? The last 4 years have proven to me that the Democratic Party is dead and serves no useful purpose other than to preserve the illusion that the United States is a democratic country.
###
Don't really care. Kerry has campaigned as a Regan era Republican. I understand the dangers of a Bush presidency, but Kerry hasn't really offered an alternative. NAFTA went through on Clintons watch, Kosovo, Sudan, etc... And Kerry is backing away from the "liberal" Clinton and regressing us to Reagan?? Bush would be worse in the short term, but as Rummy would say, "Freedom is messy". Bush would further distance our allies, will probably end up creating an alliance between Russia and China as a counterweight to US Hegemony, and through his rough "hard Imperialism", grind the empire to a halt. All the while governing a populace that is growing more and more critical of their government.

We don't have 100% participation, so it's a little naive to think that not voting for Nader would make me vote for Kerry. Much like 1996, I might just stay home, completely uninspired by any of the candidates. The voters who will lose the election for Kerry are the ones that don't get off their sofas. By making this an election about Foreign Policy instead of domestic policy, Kerry might find out that the Ghettoes don't poll well for him this time. Of course, a promise to keep your chocolate son out of Iraq might have helped him there.... Bottom line, Kerry needs to get his voters out there, not try to steal other candidate's voters.
###
This is the self-fulfilling prophecy that I plan to break. Too many people agree with Nader's sentiments but refuse to vote for him out of fear of Bush. They think, "I'm not going to vote for him because he can't win." Well, yeah, he can't win if everybody thinks that way. That's why I am very public about my vote for Nader. Even if he tipped the election to Bush, if he got merely 10% of the vote (which he was polling at before the likes of The Nader Factor polluted the internet and TV), both parties would have to respond to a growing demand for fundamental reform.
###
Possibly. WI went to Gore in 2000 by 6,000 votes. I'll watch the polls for my state closely before Election Day and if it's VERY close, I might POSSIBLY vote for Kerry. Even then it would be difficult.
###
That is my goal. Why else would I vote for Nader if not to influence the elections? The assumption behind your question is that Kerry is better than Bush. To the 1 million black men in jail today, there is no difference. To the impoverished, there is no difference (they suffer regardless of what party is in the White House). To the 11-37 thousand dead Iraqi civilians, there will be no difference.
###
I reject the question's false premise -- that my vote somehow belongs to Kerry, or any other candidate. My vote is MY vote ­ not Kerry's, not Bush's, not Nader's or anyone else's

As a five-year-old in 1952, I watched part of the Democratic Convention on television with my mother, a lifelong Democrat. She described the Dems as being for the little guy, the working man; and the GOP as being for big business and the rich. At that age it seemed to me that the rich had power and privilege, and didn't need any help from government (which I also saw as powerful), so a sense of fairness favored the Dems.

Even in 1952, my mother was wrong. The Dems had nominated a supporter of Truman's Korean War (with the suffering and dying being done primarily by "the little guy", like all wars), of Truman's National Security State, the most big-business-friendly of leading Dems; intent on compromise with the Dems' Dixiecrat wing but not the people-and-peace-friendly Henry Wallace wing. The only time the Dem nominee has been slightly to the left of the pro-corporate, military-industrial-complex elite was 1972 (the only time I have voted for a Democrat for President).

###
Using our power as potential spoilers is a strategy that WORKS! We know it works, because the right wing uses it to great effect. The religious right, in particular, is not afraid to torpedo any conservative politician who doesn't toe the line on their pet issues (abortion, guns, prayer in schools, etc.) allowing this constituency to exercise power greatly out of proportion to their actual numbers. Do you think George W. Bush really gives a rat's ass about abortion or gay marriage, or anything except making money for his corporate buddies? No, but he feels the need to placate the religious right on these issues. Why? Because they've made it a non-negotiable condition of their support. Meanwhile, we give our support away for free, settling for empty promises and the shaft every time. As they say in AA, you keep doing what you always did, you'll keep getting what you always got.

Then we don't even have the good sense to be mad at our sell-out politicians who put us in this position, but we take it out on our fellow sheep who won't go quite so meekly to the slaughter. Of the many bad effects of the stolen election of 2000, one of the worst (which has gone unremarked by any published commentator, as far as I can tell) was the way the massive electoral fraud worked to obscure the actual effect of the Nader candidacy on Gore. We on the left have spent the last four years having a pointless argument amongst ourselves about whether Nader REALLY cost Gore the election. No he didn't, all on his own, unambiguously cost Gore the election. But by God I wish he had! The last four years would have been really different.
###

5. Are you aware of the costs of another Bush presidency? If yes, what accounts for your determination to vote Nader?

Yes. The attacks on the working class have been a bi-partisan agenda for many decades. We can't put off the fight for change because once we do it is put off forever. Every four years we are told the other guy is worse, yet conditions keep getting worse. They will never get better until we reject the trap of lesser-evilism and reclaim the power of independent grassroots movements.
###
Of course I know. I don't think many people understand that HALF of the (voting) USA likes Bush. HALF. That's a lot. Maybe this country isn't going in the direction that most leftists think it is, and they would like to blame progressives who stand up for what they believe rather than perhaps that America really does want to outlaw abortion and strike pre-emptively, and fight a global war on terror.
###
The costs of another Bush presidency wont be as bad if the Democrats in Congress actually had a backbone and stood up for something. I blame them, not Bush, for all the things that went wrong in the past four years. Bush only proposed and signed the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, War in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Democrats think it is such a problem now, it doesn't fit because they(Daschle, Edwards, Kerry, . . .) have made Bush who he is today.
###
The costs of a Kerry presidency are no less. He will merely prolong the decline of the empire. Bush has accelerated it, the one positive thing that has resulted from his horrific policies.
###
I am certainly aware of the costs. A good deal of the problem with Bush is the ineptitude of the "opposition." The Ds sat on their asses for almost four years and now they expect the voters to jump up and notice them because they say they have a plan. I don't want to join the delusional crowd that feels that as soon as Kerry is in the oval office, things will immediately change for the better. He's going to be a hindrance to peace, if elected, based on his campaign rhetoric and promises to win the war(s).
###
Yes. Kerry and Bush are two heads of the same coin of American imperialism. Imperialism is the single greatest evil in this country today, and all of our other problems are directly related to it. Thus, as a disciple of American imperialism, Kerry isn't really capable of carrying out any of the programs in which he actually differs from Bush.
###
I believe that the costs of a Kerry presidency might be as bad or worse than another Bush presidency.
###
The difference, in costs, between Bush and Kerry is "How much is my monthly payment?"
###
I don't see any significant way where Kerry would be an improvement. I also see ways in which he may be more dangerous than Bush. If he really learned something from his Vietnam experience, I would think the first lesson would be not to create TV commercials promising to kill people. That commercial almost makes him sound a little unbalanced.

The second lesson would be not to promise you have an undisclosed plan to end the war. Because the French and Germans have said under no circumstances will they go to Iraq, that leaves the next most likely candidate for the "international burden," as Kerry puts it, to be the Russians. Sounds like a very bad idea. See Chechnya.
###
No. I think a Kerry presidency would be very similar to Bush's current cocked-up efforts.
###
I am aware. Are Kerry liberals aware of the cost of sanctioning the friendlier face of American Imperialism? Bush is hated now in the Middle East. Kerry's approach is not one wit different, but plenty of liberals have sown illusions that Kerry feels the pain of the ordinary Arab under occupation. These illusions will be shattered and along with them any goodwill that allegedly comes from ousting Bush. On an issue like healthcare, the costs of Kerry's ideas would guarantee the system stays in private hands, where insurance companies have jacked up premiums and profits while 45 million go without consistent health care. Is that a cost Kerry voters have thought about? I doubt it since Nader can't debate with Kerry and Bush and expose how similar their positions are.
###
Aside from the judicial appointment boogeyman..a largely unknowable phenomenon in the first place..it seems that the "costs" of another Bush presidency that are predictable, are largely things that would remain the same or extremely similar under Kerry, or things that could only be carried out with massive Democratic complicity.

In that context it seems a vote for Nader is hardly an "expensive price" to pay.
###
KERRY IS PRO-WAR AND PRO-PATRIOT ACT. DEMOS COULD HAVE DONE A HELL OF A LOT MORE TO MAKE IT HARD ON BUSH. THEY PASSED. THE COUNTRY IS NOW IN FULL EMPIRE MODE. THE DEMOS NEVER DID ANYTHING TO CORRECT THE VOTING FRAUD ISSUES, NO SENATOR WOULD CONTEST THE LAST ELECTION AND SUPPORT THE HOUSE MEMBERS. THE DEMOS DONT REALLY EXIST ANYMORE.
###
The Democrats and their enablers always scream that the sky is falling come election-time and then spend the rest of the cycle collaborating with the Republicans on issue after issue. Their "sky's falling" declaration are little more than political theatre. The Democrats have no intention of opposing 99% of Republican initiatives, but would like the ill-informed to believe otherwise. I support Ralph on the positions for which he stands. I don't support Kerry on the positions on which he stands (or, largely, doesn't stand).
###
Bush isn't Hitler. A Bush victory might not be ALL bad. There's a chance Bush could be impeached in a 2nd term, leading to reforms in executive power, voting procedures. Bush could be gun-shy on further wars where Kerry might feel the need to be a tough guy (remember Clinton bombed Iraq almost the moment he was inaugurated).
###
Yet another ignorant question. Do you think it really matters which rich white man wins this election? As a person with Native American (Apache and Tewa) blood I know that my ancestors were murdered and driven from their land no matter the political affiliation of the man in the White House. The weak and disenfranchised in this country have been oppressed with equal vigor by the administrations of Republican and Democratic Presidents. I am aware that we are doomed if we maintain the aggressive and racist American foreign policy that has existed since the start of WWII, but I find the proposition that John Kerry would change anything laughable. George W. Bush is not doing anything new. He is doing what American Presidents have always done, attack the weak whether by foreign war or social oppression for the benefit of the wealthy class. The system that creates leaders like Bush is the problem and it won't change under John Kerry because he is part of the system too.

###
Four more years of Bush. What does that mean? First, look at the circumstances he will face in office. Open rebellion in Iraq that he has not hope of quelling. America is strategically unable to exploit the Iraq bridgehead, and would face strident international opposition to further conquests from every country except Australia. On the other hand the neocons and Bush's own ego will not accept a retreat from Iraq. So he has no option - he's got four years down in the hole, and every day of it will be more damaging to Republicans as the lies pile up to a completely unmanageable level. Bush and Cheney will be impeached mid-term.

This scenario is almost identical if Kerry wins office. He will be required to pursue the war in Iraq by corporate America, the Zion lobby and his own "tough talk" on the campaign trail (unless he does another back flip!). True, he may be slightly more recalcitrant to open new fronts in Iran or Syria. However he will be able to continue the occupation of Iraq without risk of impeachment, and look good doing it, because he is able to deny responsibility for the invasion despite his routine self-abasement as a congressman. So he'll be stuck in a slightly shallower hole - along with the rest of America, along with those Army conscripts - for eight years!! Iraqis and arguably Palestinians may well regard this as the worse-case scenario.

Either way, Nader's power grows stronger as the major parties wane, and someday I'll be able to say to my son, "I was a part of the movement that stopped all that horseshit!"
###
Let's see the costs...to prove I'm aware of them...Supreme Court appointments (which the President does not have the last word on), the destruction of our environment quickly and violently vs. a little less quickly and more quietly, stem cell research, Cheney...I'm probably forgetting a couple, but those are the ones the Dems keep throwing at me. But what are the costs of no opposition to Kerry? Kerry is free to move further right, there's no voice against the Iraq quagmire, no voice against corporate crime and corruption of Washington, no criticism of No Child Left Behind except that it needs more funding, more troops in Iraq, a potential draft (Democrats sponsored the bill and Kerry won't come out and say he'd never support it, unlike Bush), no voice for the 39 million working poor, no voice for the 18,000+ Americans who die from a lack of health care coverage, no voice for worker rights to organize and worker safety, no voice for electoral reform, and no voice for campaign finance reform -- to mention the first few issues that pop into my head.

###
All that Bush bad happened over the LIVE bodies of Democrats -- such as Kerry the PATRIOT Act, etc.). Bush should be impeached. Nader calls for it. Dems silent.
###
there is no difference between Bush and Kerry. What have we lost by Kerry not being president? He voted for Bush's war. He voted for Bush's Patriot Act. Kerry's voting record clearly supports Bush and clearly supports a government that is investing more time, energy, and money into the interests of corporations instead of American citizens.

###
I am. My determination to vote Nader is two-fold. The first being that I am admittedly stubborn in my politics (much like Nader) and refuse to compromise on many of my positions. The second being that the Democrats have been complicit in many of the atrocities committed by the Bush administration (for example, the Patriot Act and the Iraqi War). Senators can filibuster any bill so long as 60 senators do not wish to invoke the cloture rule to stop debate. I've not seen too many filibusters by Democratic senators the past 4 years.
###
Actually I'm more concerned with the cost of a Kerry victory. We've all seen the ABB crowd roll over and support Kerry even while saying they are against the war. Well, the day after the election of Kerry, most of the ABB folks are going to go into hibernation and despite their rhetoric, are not to going to challenge him about the war or much of anything else. We've seen this behavior before, when Clinton won the presidency and sold out the progressives with an imperialist war in Yugoslavia, so-called "welfare reform" that destroyed what remained of the safety net for the poor and his support for NAFTA. In some respects the NAFTA sellout was the worse since it went against not only progressives, but even the more conservative Dem supporters -- labor unions. Clinton knew, just as Kerry will know, that unless the progressives are going to support a third Party, and by definition, ABB's wont do that, they simply have nowhere to go and are locked into supporting him and the Dem/DLC agenda. Period. Why should Kerry listen after the election when he didn't listen before the election.
###
Yes, Bush is the worst president we have ever had, but Kerry is just Republican light. He does not represent change.

###
Yes. Bush is a bad president, but the badness of his presidency has been exaggerated vis-à-vis other presidencies. Clinton started a war against Serbs without any conceivable threat to the American people, without UN approval, and without the congressional declaration required by the Constitution. Anglo-American imperialism took the lives of many innocent people in the Balkans in the 1990s with the support of the Democratic Party. The Bosnia and Kosovo wars were justified by the demonization of Milosovich, as if U.S. foreign policy is actually determined by things like concern for human life or human rights. The propaganda about Milosovich echoed and foreshadowed the same verbal attack on Hussein. Of course, Milosovich was a thug, but he and the Serbs did not have a monopoly on atrocities during the Balkan civil war (as Clinton, Gore, Albright, and Kerry well knew). Instead of acknowledging this, and allowing the Europeans to continue working on a brokered peace, the Democrats poured gasoline on the fire and killed more innocent people. The Patriot Act is an updating of the Anti-Terrorism Act created by Clinton in 1996. CAFTA proposed by Bush builds upon NAFTA pushed by Clinton. Kerry supported war against Iraq as early as 1998, when many congressional Democrats were agitating for bloodshed.

I think war against Iran is more likely under Kerry than Bush. Just listen to what Kerry, Edwards, and the Democratic platform are saying about Iran. This would be a perfect opportunity for John "Reporting for Duty" Kerry to prove how macho he is, expand the American empire, please the Israeli government, and help out U.S.-based oil companies. In the second debate, Kerry was specifically asked how he would handle Iran if they don't stop working on their reputed nuclear program. In typical fashion, he gave a mealy-mouthed answer but ended up saying, "If we have to get tough with Iran, believe me, we will get tough." If you support war with Iraq, vote for Kerry because he's the most likely candidate to give you what you want. (If he does, maybe some of the neoconservatives will return to their Democratic home and join the DLC hawks who have long loved Kerry and Edwards.) I don't see any improvement if Bush's policies are handed off to Kerry for his smoother style of administration. It might make Barbra Streisand or Jacques Chirac feel better, but it won't help the rest of the world. A vote for Kerry is truly a vote for Bush's policies. It's illogical, delusional, and immature to think otherwise.
###
My determination to support Nader is more a determination to make a "clean break" from the Democratic party. I fully believe it is a dead-end for social movements to attach themselves to the Dems. We will be sold out again and again every four years if we tie our fate to whichever "lesser-evil" is nominated. I also firmly believe that there is no way for any third-party candidate to become successful without having to respond to the "spoiler" label. This is an inevitable label that will be used to intimidate supporters of independent politics.
###
We need to raise our sights and seek a higher ideal of what it means to be a citizen and what it means to lead. If my standing up for these values means that Bush will become President, then so be it. That only means that we in America are in need of a lesson in responsible citizenship. I think Bush will teach us that. He inspired me to stop trying to grow my business and to put my attention instead on being a citizen first. I have children and grandchildren who I love. We need to do what's important first.
###
I am well aware of how much Bush would be free to do if he wins this election. But, my reasons for supporting Nader are two-fold. First, Kerry supports Bush-style regressive neo-conservativism. PATRIOT Act, No Child left Behind, imperialism, gay-marriage, etc. Not to mention that Kerry's plan for "ending outsourcing of US jobs" will not work and is just a glorified tax-break to huge companies that have already decided to keep jobs here. Further, democracy only works when we vote for what we truly believe in. "Strategic voting" and the lesser-of-two-evils politics have no place in a successful democratic society. I am a Minnesota Vikings fan. We have never won a superbowl, and we won't this year, but they are my home team. I love them, and I am cheering for them whether or not they can win. I refuse to cheer for the Patriots or the Eagles. Go Vikings! Go Nader!
###
I view Kerry as NEARLY as costly--not totally, but NEARLY.
###

I find it very ironic that the current ABB crowd accuses ME of not fully appreciating the costs of another Bush presidency. Where were all these people over the last four years when I was out in the streets getting tear gassed? In January 2002, not 4 months after the 9/11 attacks, I was one of the organizers of a protest against a visit by the Commander in Thief to my hometown of Portland. An ABBer I work with attended the same event--except that he had a ticket to Bush's speech, sat in the audience, and politely applauded to show his support for Bush's "war on terrorism." He told me afterwards that there were a few points where he withheld his applause to make a point. Yeah, some point! Three years later, he now thinks voting for Kerry is a good way to make his point.

There is a fundamental incoherence in the ABB mindset, which is the proverbial elephant in the living room that nobody wants to talk about during this election. On the one hand, we're supposed to believe that George W. Bush is the Worst President Ever, qualitatively and quantitatively worse than anybody who has gone before, and single-handedly responsible for everything from global warming to the heartbreak of psoriasis. On the other hand, we're supposed to accept that it's OK for the Democrats to have supported 90% of the Bush agenda over the past four years. Now, which is it going to be, guys?! If Bush is as bad as the Democrats say, it should be absolutely unacceptable for ANY politician to have supported him or voted with him, EVER. Bush collaborators should be ostracized from public life like the plague carriers that they are. On the other hand, if most of his agenda is something the Democrats are comfortable supporting, then perhaps they should go ahead and admit that the sky won't fall if we have another four years of him.

The Kerry campaign tries to take advantage of this incoherence by playing both sides of the issue. When they aren't lying about his record, or engaging in ridiculous hair-splitting, Kerry's supporters frame his support for most of the Bush agenda as a GOOD thing. He's "moderate." He's "electable." He can appeal to those quasi-mythical "swing voters." At the same time, I'm supposed to believe that not voting for Kerry is tantamount to heresy, because Bush is poised to become the next Hitler. Well, which is it?!

A realistic appraisal of the consequences of another Bush term starts with an accurate understanding of the last four years. The last four years have been VERY frightening, no question about that. But these frightening developments have all been logical developments of late-stage imperial capitalism, and have all followed on very specific foundations laid during the Clinton years, with welfare reform, NAFTA, his 1996 "anti-terrorism act," etc. (Not to mention Clinton's Iraq policy, which killed 6,000 innocent people per month for 8 straight years.) Bush is not a historical aberration, nor is he a mad emperor. He did not, and could not have, accomplished any of his nefarious deeds without a huge degree of Democratic collaboration. If we want to defeat Bush's AGENDA, it will not suffice to replace him with another carbon-based life form who supports that agenda. We need to hold the Democrats accountable.

Should the progressive vote for Nader indeed prove to be the decisive factor in this election (very unlik