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.
|
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 |