The Gore/Nader conflict all over again, but this time its inside the DemParty
In 2000, I was quite aware that BushCo. LLP, would be bad for the US. He'd ruined our state of Texas as governor and now suddenly after one term as Gov. he wanted crack at the White House, er...I mean,...a crack at the White House. The two viable options on the table were of course Al Gore, and his...enemy?...Ralph Nader.
Now, I am so aware of what Bush did after 2000 that I look back and ask myself, would I have voted any different? Answer...still...Nope. I voted for Ralph Nader. And there was a clear reason why I voted for him.
I was in Texas when lost its mind years ago and I knew, and it was shown in the results, even if you added Nader's votes on top of Gore, Gore lost Texas anyway. This is what caused many to use the "vote trading" system where people who were in states that were definitely red, would vote for Nader and not endanger shifty states or blue states. This showed some conciousness on their part. Even then the Gore camp focused more on Nader than Bush.
The fact that the Gore supporters attacked Nader instead of Bush is why I didn't vote for Gore. Their efforts were completely anti-democratic. He didn't know who his real enemy was, and had he campaigned differently he could have succeeded at TWO victories: One for president, One for a new party.
But that isn't what happened. In the months before the Nov 2000 coup de etat from CheneyCo. LLP., the Gore camp launched repeated attacks on Ralph Nader instead of George Bush. It was this that forced me to make a decision about the future of democracy as I saw it: a two party system leaving nobody of alternative when the two fail you.
What was often missed by the Gore supporters is that Nader was singing the populous tune and resonating with the cynicism against American politicians by the public.
And frankly, when I was young, I used to watch Nader's raiders TV show where I could learn how different corporations where swindling me thru various forms of deception about their products and services. That's how I learned how to become an active citizen about issues in my community and with my small buying power.
So what about it.
Well, now we have the story breaking about Hillary Clinton and John Edwards talking on-mic about weeding out their competition. It sounds like they are ready for their own VH1 celebrity elimination show instead of leading the US. They are very quick to try to eliminate, FOR US, other options with a bullshit nobility that they think they own.
My personal choices for candidate are so limited that I don't want to have these two work to weed me out of the political process a year and 4 months until election day. My candidate of choice is one who was bold enough to call for Impeachment with HR 333. His name is Dennis Kucinich.
Mr. Kucinich has been very quick to respond to these comments by Clinton and Edwards, and I was quick to call both campaigns and encourage them to rethink their comments. These comments are steaks in front of hungry poodles at FauxNews, CNN, MSNBC, and of course the pulp wasting NYT, WSJ, National Review, FrontPage, and so forth. They were stupid enough to say these things with their mics on, and I'm thankful.
There is virtually no way I'm voting for John Edwards after watching, yet again on CSPAN this week, him get owned by arch villain Dick Cheney. Edwards looked ill-prepared to attack this monger.
The politically flaky Hillary would be an ironic punch in the gut of the right-wing juggernuts, but at what risk? Would she also be willing to carpet bomb Kosovo? Would she be willing to carpet bomb anyone who was easy pickins to make her look tough?
Biden and Dodd come off as blowhards, though Dodd comes out on top between the two, Bill Lopez Richardson loves to show his credits, but hasn't convinced me of his readiness to be president. Obama is fresh and young, which keeps him in my pool of possibilities, but with a short trackrecord....where's the experience?
That leaves the apparent looney Mike Gravel. He seems to be campaigning as if he's got nothing to lose but future generations. He seems to be hearing the reaper and wants to do his last best effort to confront our nations legacy and current path. This makes him one of the most honest candidates there, and I think its him that Clinton/Edwards want to refer to when they say, "not serious" candidate.
We'll be seeing in the next few weeks if this story has legs, but right now, it isn't a light matter to have presumptive candidates deciding that we shouldn't be seeing the others. I'll side with keeping the whole lot of them up there in UNION with each other focused on one target, this administration and their buddies.
Nice post csampson. Nader has also been a hero of mine since my formative years. My y2k situation was the inverse of yours, I'm registered in California so I had the luxury of a "throw-away" vote. I'm pretty sure Gore, but I honestly can't say how I would have voted had I resided in say, Florida.
Regardless of how many on our side view him now I find him to be like a good woman, he only gets better with age. He is lucid and exacting with almost all pertinent issues in these times, and it seems like whenever he states his stance, I find myself saying, "right on Ralph." And where he makes the most sense is when he describes that ALL successful progressive movements in our history have originated from third party actions, where the politicians felt obligated to their constituents. Have a little taste for old time sake:
Here is the whole thing, a recent transcript from an in-depth interview he had with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! that is well worth the read.
Now to get back on topic. The miked whisper-whisper plot was an abominable display of undemocratic elitism. I share the frustration of the debate format. I think a novel compromise would be if the candidates started a debate blog on their respective web sites. They could elaborate on their oral answers and even have a tit-for-tat with other candidates. But I suspect they are in fear of having to delineate a too comprehensive position that would bring the ire of special interest groups and leave themselves open to critical analysis. You know, play it safe, what you don't know won't hurt you.
July 15, 2007 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gary, good response, but you incorrectly read what I said about my Texas vote. It was a "throw away vote" state. Texas was clearly going to Bush (which I don't like) and thus it was cleary safe for me to vote for Nader without compromising the returns on Gore. Added to Gore's returns in Texas, Bush still won.
Bush - 3,799,639
Gore - 2,433,746
Nader - 137,994
Gore + Nader - 2571740 (lost by 1,227,899)
July 15, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks csampson, I read it correctly but I had a tongue-tied response. I meant to say that I TOO had the luxury...
The inverse was that Ca. was a democratic sure bet.
July 15, 2007 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I see.. yeah it was the inverse. Texas was gone before it started, according to some. But then again...if it went completely uncontested...it was bound to be Red. what a damn shame.
July 16, 2007 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The fact that the Gore supporters attacked Nader instead of Bush is why I didn't vote for Gore." Could it be that Gore's strategist sensed that a shift in even 1 percent of Nader voters in a key state like Florida might throw the election to a fascist?
The justification for refusing to vote for Edwards also seems frivolous, and this second-guessing political strategy is all out of keeping with the supposed nature of a Nader campaign, to appeal to conviction. If you can't justify that conviction, by showing that "they're all the same corporate fascists," and of course you can't, you've no business plugging for Nader. The rest sounds like excuses. Hillary might appreciate that herself.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
July 15, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could it be that Gore's strategist sensed that a shift in even 1 percent of Nader voters in a key state like Florida might throw the election to a fascist?
Could it be that they were focused on the wrong target? None of your comment seems to reflect that as a possibility which is exactly what I'm pointing out. Had Gore's camp left Nader alone, I know that many people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. I know hundreds of people who over the last 7 years have explicitly stated they were more cemented in Nader's corner AS A DIRECT RESULT of the Gore supporter’s attacks on Nader supporters.
I can't assume you were such a person...but I do suspect by your writing here that you would have been one. And here's what sticks in the rib of someone who didn't support Gore as of Election Day. Those supporters who attacked Nader's supporters came off as arrogant, haughty, and superior in their political acumen. And they were killing Gore's campaign in doing so.
What political science class ever teaches?
"The way to win elections is to attack people you want to vote for your campaign."
Further, to state that my "refusing to vote" for Edwards seems frivolous is to ignore his abysmal performance of Edwards at the table with the "fascist" VP. Cheney ate his lunch. I didn't want that. I hate that it happened that way, but I just watched the whole debate again on CSPAN3 just 48hrs ago, and it still stinks.
Actually your second paragraph almost doesn't make sense to me. You might want to explain what you mean, and how you assume that this is related to my points. I don't assume you agree 100% with your candidates, and I don't agree 100% with mine. But with as many paragraphs as I wrote, you took one line and spoke several back.
And most important, DO NOT EXCUSE my comments because they are definately not excuses.
____________________
ex·cuse (?k-sky??z')
tr.v. ex·cused, ex·cus·ing, ex·cus·es
To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven or understood: He arrived late and excused his tardiness in a flimsy manner.
To apologize for (oneself) for an act that could cause offense: She excused herself for being late.
To grant pardon to; forgive: We quickly excused the latecomer.
To make allowance for; overlook: Readers must excuse the author's youth and inexperience. See Synonyms at forgive.
____________________
I'm not apologizing for my position and for you to assume I should is more of the same.
And last:
I have every bit of a right to go "plugging for Nader" as you say. Why you think its appropriate to tell another citizen in this "democracy" that they have "no business plugging" for someone they believe understands them is beyond me. But it reeks of political arrogance and elitism, the very nature of my post.
The continued venom from Democrats towards Nader who make the rediculous claim that blame Nader for the election of Bush shows why the Democrats still have much to learn about the citizens of the United States. That level of arrogance is what keeps their base from growing. Middle America isn't Republican. It isn't Democrat either. Middle America is busy working and want a candidate who will lead or officiate their country in a way that leads to propserity and safety. They don't want arrogant assumptive candidates who assume, "I'm not George Bush. Vote for me." They don't want to be talked down to by politicos. And they aren't easily swayed by nuances in process and the game of politics. They want Nascar, American Idol, McDonalds and their holidays.
Bottom line: YOU HAVE TO EARN THEIR VOTE. It is a crucial mistake to assume you have it. It is a deadly mistake for a campaign to assume anything. RoveCo. LLP didn't assume anything, they went out and whipped our ass by grassroots level actions starting in the 80s. They convinced Middle America that the Republicans were the real Flag waving party. The Democrats failed to convince them. That was more painfully obvious after the Kerry defeat. Many of those candidates didn't even try to contest my state, Texas, during 2000 or 2004. They gave up and went to states that they thought they could win easily, and the middle ground states. That is a failure that both parties cannot afford to make, if they want to succeed in election cycles. As we say in cycling, "no gifts."
(note: all this argument assumes on both of our parts that Florida wasn't fixed and Ohio wasn't fixed in 2004. I am more along the lines that Florida was stolen, and that 2000 was a coup d'etat.)
July 15, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink