Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Dean Vs. Nader

Ooh what great fuckin year this is!

Why do I say this? Because it's so fuckin exciting. I'm getting married, been traveling and will continue to do so all year, and it's an election year. What more could I ask for? But seriously, I like a good debate as much as the next guy, but I am so perturbed by all these Democrats who keep attacking Ralph Nader for running. This has escalated to efforts to legally block Nader ballot access. Now is this how the "Democratic" party promotes democracy? I mean, what are y'all afraid of? Give me a break, this man has the right run.

The first time I came across these attacks was a cyber squatter that owns the name Nader2004.org. Ok so this person comes very close to blaming Nader for the war in Iraq. Check it out for yourself. He has an email link in which I proceeded to rip him/her/them a new asshole for being so ignorant and uninformed. I'll get to that later.

I came across the site while looking for an audio link to the Dean/Nader debate. Dean, who was the most popular anti-establishment candidate (the best one was Kucinich but I believe Sharpton was a close second) has become Kerry's bitch and has been given the job to destroy and discredit Nader. Depending on how you look at the debate, the winner of the debate can be Nader or Dean. Nader is old and not as quick as Dean, but Nader had better points to make. Especially when he quoted statements Dean made during the primary against Kerry. Simply brilliant.

Anywho, the making of a new anus.

1. The War Argument. Yep, we've all heard it. There would not be an Iraq war if Gore was president. Simple comeback. The bombings on Iraq did not end with George Bush I. Under Clinton, the US continued to bomb Iraq and killed countless innocent civilians. In any event, the economic war Clinton waged on the world via free trade agreements is as bad if not worse than 'real war'. So do you really think Kerry is going to pull out the troops if he gets elected just because he is Democrat? Democrats have gotten us into many bullshit wars, so this does not differentiate them with Republicans. Remember Vietnam? In any event Kerry voted for the war and has not said he regrets the decision. Even after new information about the lack of weapons of mass destruction and no Al Quean link.

2. Oh but Bush has tramples our civil liberties! Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. Next.

3. But Bush is the Candidate of Big Business. Kerry has accepted campaign contributions by Microsoft, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley among others. It's also interesting that these companies also gave money to the Bush/Cheney ticket.

4. Nader cost Gore the Election. Listen, 250,000 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida alone, and 8 million nationwide. Instead of blaming Nader for their misfortunes, the Dems should look at themselves and see why they lost 8 million folks to Bush! How embarrassing! Not to mention that 100,000 people that didn't show up to the polls.

Should I continue. I have more, where that came from and I will go toe to toe with anyone who wishes to meet for beer and heated political discussions.

Finally, I want to say how disappointed I am with Michael Moore. He had the power to expose the larger problem that plagues America, but like Dean, he has become a mouth piece for the Democrats and his film a way to further polarize America.

Ok, time for nap. Take care and have a safe weekend.

love//the_stimulator

6 Comments:

At 7:16 AM, Blogger the_stimulator said...

Here's A reply from my friend Mike -

nader would do us all a favor if he backed out before the election. what we need now is a solid, unified group. a group large enough and strong enough to make a stand and say "not in my country!" if you continue to bash people for supporting kerry, you are causing a huge rift in the people who believe the same things you do. the astrophysicist condemning the biologist because he doesn't look into space, when the biologist is just trying to make science available to everyone. america has a large bleeding wound and needs immediate help. part of that immediate help is to have something for all of us that are opposed to bush's regime to believe in. i will agree that nader would be the best president, but sometimes that's not the issue. i'm glad he's in the race to keep the other candidates talking about important issues, but at the same time, he is a line dividing one group and causing conflict at a time when that conflict is not helpful, rather, it is extremely harmful. we should be unified, and stand unified, and once we are confident in that unity, then we can conquer any goal. i am proud to say that i am voting for kerry without doubt or shame. i will hold my brothers hand when the waves crash through and make sure that we all survive. i will stand proudly against bush and when kerry wins, hopefully he won't win by 1%, but by a massive landslide victory. then when bush and the republican agenda is wiped from the books, nader will still be there, ready to take up where he left off.
 
hearts,
michael

 
At 7:17 AM, Blogger the_stimulator said...

And my reply to Mike's reply

Mikey,

Let's get one thing straight. I NEVER bashed anyone for supporting Kerry. My whole email was about people bashing folks like me who are supporting third party candidates and the democrats bashing Nader. You can vote for whoever you want, and yes I will tell you all night long why I think my choice is the wisest, but bashing is not in my repertoire.

OK, with that out of the way I believe that maybe you missed my point completely or that I did not properly communicate it. In my opinion voting for Kerry will not change all that much. Was that not clear? If I don't like Bush and I believe that Kerry is not much different then WHY should I vote for Kerry? Every 4 years the Democrats sell us the same fear and nothing changes. Meanwhile, the slow steady build out of a third party takes a back seat "Oh maybe in the next election when we don't have such as scary Republican" The Republicans do the same thing and people who would otherwise vote Libertarian don't because of the fear of that "Scary left winger that could be our next president"

Meanwhile the status quo remains. The GOP and the DEMS don't want a third party. The fact that Nader gets ANY support makes the Dems freak out. In the end a bunch of Republicans vote for Nader in the last election because of his environmental platform, and A LOT where first time voters. In a time when voting apathy is at an all time high (nearly 100 million eligible voters did not show up to the polls in the last election) Nader gives a jump start to the democratic process.

Telling him not to run or to pull out infuriates me. The goals is to get him on the ballot!! If he gets a certain amount of votes he can be PRINTED on the ballot so that the ADD voters who might forget to write him in or those who didn't know that there were other choices see that.

In the end, what are you so afraid of? 8 years of Reagan (pretty horrible right wing president) and 4 of GB I and we're still here. Do you think the world is going to end? That this is the worst shit ever? Come on dude, look at history. Join the real fight to take our country back and do not settle for second best. I am not talking just about voting, I am talking about becoming REALLY active and not being an email activist. All this debating is fine and dandy, but in the end actions speak louder than words. Do something.

I would love to continue this debate, but for the time being I leave you with a quote from an unknown source.

"If elections changed anything, they would be illegal"

love

frankie

 
At 4:33 PM, Blogger the_stimulator said...

Here's one from an angry woman who belongs to my list.

Hi Frank,

Can't handle the Nader tripe anymore... I think it'd be best if you went ahead and took me off your submedia list...

I agree that Nader has as much *right* to run as any other third party presidential candidate.  And he has about as much chance of winning, too.  When you asked what the Democrats are afraid of if Nader gets on the ballot?  We're afraid of a repeat of exactly what happened in 2000, thats what!  Duh!  And as long as there are people like you who think it's cool to vote for Nader when the left needs every single vote it can muster to ensure a defeat of Bush and his cronies, then we just might get it... Woo hoo.  4 more years of Bush!  Thanks a bunch... So glad you feel it necessary to make your anti-establishment statement at the rest of our expense... But hey, that's your *right*... I just don't want to hear about it. 

Back in 2000, Nader's rallying cry was that there's no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. And that, in fact, it might even be *better* if Bush won because the American people would be so ENRAGED by Bush's ultra-right-wing policies, that we might even start a REVOLUTION!  Well, where's the revolution, Frank?  It ain't gonna happen -- not under Nader's "charismatic" leadership, that's for sure.  Does Ralph Nader actually think that it doesn't ultimately matter if we get Bush again so we can go even further down this path, so maybe in another 4 years that revolution will magically materialize?  Under his leadership?  Oh please... The guy is delusional.

Whatever, dude.  It must be nice to feel like there's so little at stake... You must feel that way if you're more interested in spending your time engaging in political debates with your liberal and progressive friends than doing whatever it takes to get George Bush out of office by trying to elect the only viable candidate in the race.  This is not about whether Nader has a right to run (of course he does) or whether you have a right to vote for whoever you want to (of course you do). It's a matter of whether all of your political posturing will make one iota of difference in anyone's life or in the life of the planet.  We have a chance to elect someone who the Republicans disdainfully call "the most liberal member of the Senate".  And all you can do is bash him?  My God!  Is Kerry perfect?  Of course not.  No one is.  Don't fool yourself into thinking Ralph Nader is either.  No candidate is going to be perfectly aligned with any single person's political beliefs... Are both parties flawed? Of course they are.  Are the Democrats a better choice than the Republicans? You better believe it.  (Even Nader himself has admitted as much this time around...)  Is there any possibility that a majority of people in this country will actually revolt against the two-party system by electing Ralph Nader president in 2004?  Not a chance in hell.  So, debate all you want and feel as morally superior as you want by "voting your conscience."  But if Bush wins (again) by slimmer margins than the number of votes Nader siphons from the Democratic candidate, I hope your conscience is clear when Bush enacts policies that destroy what's left of the environment and appoints ultra-conservative judges to the Supreme Court -- both of which will have repercussions far beyond the presidency for decades... 

Oh, and by the way, congratulations on your impending marriage (consider yourself lucky that you are allowed to marry the person you love). I hope you and your fiancee don't find yourself with an unintended pregnancy under a Bush-appointed court... 

Fight the real enemy, Frank -- not your progressive friends. 

See ya,

Names Withdrawn to protect the guilty

It is much too easy to take a position which just removes the relevancy of integration, and equally to take a position which simply says both political parties stink. They do!  But that is not the point.  The point is, that one will find oneself in some situations having to cooperate with that one which is in power if one is himself, as Negroes manipulating power.  And on other occasions, they're going to have to select the one which stinks least. That is the nature of politics.

-- Bayard Rustin (Brother Outsider)

 
At 6:40 PM, Blogger steakfry said...

GO Third Party! GO. GO. GO. WOO-HOO! I am voting third party this year. If I can't then I am not voting period.
Yep, the option and validity of a third party option is more important than Kerry getting my vote this year. If you use the "just vote primary party in this election or you'll destroy the world" argument now, I bet you've used it before and will use it again.

I like my third party candidate extremely and I believe he represents my political ideals better than anyone else. Asking me to vote for the "next best thing" doesn't sound appealing so, no thanks!

love-sf

 
At 4:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What third party candidate? I thought we were talking about Nader. He's not running under the green party this time. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 when it could've meant something. I wish that more people had voted for him back then instead of being talked into voting Democrat. We would be in a MUCH MUCH MUCH better place right now if he had just gotten 5 freaking %! The green party would've been on the ballot this year and participating in debates! Bye Bye 2 party system. But nooooooo. Nader people chickened out and voted democrat so nothing has changed, and it never will until people start doing what the believe in.

Now that that's said, Nader is running as an independent this election. Even if he does get 5% or more, it won't make ANY difference whatsoever. There will still be 2 parties in 2008.

Now THAT being said, Nader can do whatever the hell he wants to do. I'll be voting for Kerry and I'll be damned if Bush gets to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It will only take 1 more to give the Republicans a majority. Not only that, but Bush will have free reign to do as he pleases this term because he won't be worried about re-election. When Kerry is elected he will have some promisses to keep over the next four years if he wants an encore.

Oh and by the way...Microsoft and Morgan Stanley? Give me a break! We all know that big corporations are evil and that they play both sides. But some I'll take an evil software giant over an evil oil company all day long. i don't think we'll be starting any wars that benefit the above mentioned Kerry campaign contributers.

 
At 4:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What third party candidate? I thought we were talking about Nader. He's not running under the green party this time. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 when it could've meant something. I wish that more people had voted for him back then instead of being talked into voting Democrat. We would be in a MUCH MUCH MUCH better place right now if he had just gotten 5 freaking %! The green party would've been on the ballot this year and participating in debates! Bye Bye 2 party system. But nooooooo. Nader people chickened out and voted democrat so nothing has changed, and it never will until people start doing what the believe in.

Now that that's said, Nader is running as an independent this election. Even if he does get 5% or more, it won't make ANY difference whatsoever. There will still be 2 parties in 2008.

Now THAT being said, Nader can do whatever the hell he wants to do. I'll be voting for Kerry and I'll be damned if Bush gets to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It will only take 1 more to give the Republicans a majority. Not only that, but Bush will have free reign to do as he pleases this term because he won't be worried about re-election. When Kerry is elected he will have some promisses to keep over the next four years if he wants an encore.

Oh and by the way...Microsoft and Morgan Stanley? Give me a break! We all know that big corporations are evil and that they play both sides. But some I'll take an evil software giant over an evil oil company all day long. i don't think we'll be starting any wars that benefit the above mentioned Kerry campaign contributers.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home