Why do I dislike "Progressive purists" almost as much as I dislike conservatives? Why do I become infuriated whenever someone tries to give me the Standard Issue Both Parties Are The Same speech, a speech which hasn't changed since the 1970s?
Two facts:
Number of people who voted for "purist" candidate Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000: 97,421
"Official" difference between the Bush vote and the Gore vote in 2000: 537.
The purists have blood on their hands, for they made Bush possible. All those who spouted the SIBPATS speech against Gore in 2000 bear much responsibility for the subsequent robbery of our treasury, the erosion of our rights, the erasure of our international standing, the willful ignorance of global warming, the cadavers in the streets of Iraq, the flag-draped coffins flying home, the young men and women with prosthetic limbs and wounded psyches, the corruption, the theocracy, the hypocrisy, the daily horrors.
Of course, the purists will mount an elaborate argument in an effort to convince one and all that they bear no blame for the Bush disaster. Mounting elaborate arguments is what the purists do. What other talents have they ever demonstrated?
13 comments:
I think you need to accept the fact that even if Ralph Nader had mustered 100,000 votes in Florida the apparatus put in place by the GOP would have ensured Bush came out on top.
They steal only as many votes as they need to to get their guy in, so having Nader really wouldn't have made a difference at all.
Vote whomever you want in the primary, if your dood doesn't make it, tough shit. It's time to hold your nose and vote the winner of that contest.
Flo
Oh BTW Joseph, I watched Real time last weekend and this seems to have been missed by most of the blogs except this link.
I have to go with the neo-con (or whatever he is) on this opinion.
Not one more dollar to you know where.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3701
There would have been no alternative fiction like Philip Roth's The Plot Against America. Certainly there wouldn't be Cannonfire with its provenance. Without Nader on the ballot probably many more Jews would have voted for Pat Buchanan hahaha. Maybe Gore lost Florida because the voters there (who are also now your contemptible readers) thought his running mate was Joey Heatherton. Anyway, you should rejoice, Joe, since Lieberman would not have suffered your AIPAC kvetching gladly.
True: In 1988 I was getting a haircut, and asked the stylist where the local voting precinct was (I'd just moved to the neighborhood), she didn't know or care, she said. Her girlfriend offered that she would vote for Bush because her "dad likes Dan Quayle, he's handsome like Kennedy". ANTHK!*
*And Now They Have Kids
your brainless analysis of we the purists, puts you in the corner of the left wing of the vulture (Congress) with one head. You obviously would have voted for LBJ simply because he was called a Democrat..even though he is the Democrat that dragged us into Viet Nam because he was told to.
Until we can figure out a way to stop the corporations (that are running our affairs..the multi national ones especially)from purchasing all the politicians in both parties, we purists are the only truly objective voice in this Republic.
Your slavish adherence to the D word, no matter the consequences, is lamentable and ignorant of the facts.
It might make some sense if you were being funded by the Democrats to apologize for their every devious decision..but no, you do it for free.
How Come?
Sorry, but Joe's right on this one.
No, I do not believe that Nader is THE reason for Gore's loss. But he was one factor. Also, according to reports, he was quite happy that Gore lost, and even said that he preferred Bush over Gore.
The ugly thing about all of this is that Bush and Nader share one thing in common: Both of them have never acknowledged that they have made mistakes. In other words, they have never said, "Well, I was wrong."
The fact that seven years after 2000, despite the wars, the deaths, the terrorist attacks, the loss of much of the Constitution, and the downward spiral of the US in the world...the fact that Nader still barks that there is still no difference between the Dems and Repubs show that he has, to be honest, lost it. During the September 15th peace rally in DC, he railed on Dems the most, and barely touched Bush and the Republicans.
Ralph Nader did many good things for Americans in the 1960s through the 1970s. We owe him a lot for that. But all of that will be forgotten because of his actions from 2000 to now.
The purists can whine all they want. The only thing they have achieved is a greater hold on power by the Republicans. Unfortunately, practical, pragmatic politics are the only way to beat the Repubs, and since the purists never practice such politics, they will always be the whiners in the corner.
Of course, maybe they don't care about that.
There is one variant of Naderite that especially irks me, and that's the type who say, "I voted for Nader but I live in a safe district where the Democrat was going to win anyway...." One look at the Florida vote tallies puts the lie to that argument: Florida was safely Democratic until 97,421 morons f*cked it up. I am so over these Pontius Pilate purity-of-conscience voters.
I used to blame the Naderites for the election debacle, but now I'm more of the opinion that anonymous 5:49 expresses as the first post here.
Logically, assuming arguendo that the Bush murder claque fully intended to steal the election (as is more than obvious, IMO), yes, for every vote Nader WOULDN'T have gotten (if he hadn't run, or had pulled out as he promised for states in which his likely vote would make the swing difference), which maybe went to Gore, would simply have been switched over to another 3rd party candidate (Buchanan) or directly to Bush, in amounts proportionate to give him whatever edge they thought credible to show.
Far more important than anything else in the election was the unceasing, two-year long media savaging of Gore with lies and sneering attacks, which pulled him down from what should have been landslide proportions (at least based on the economy and the actual political record of the Clinton/Gore team) to within striking range of a conversely treated Bush. Bob Somerby has the chapter and verse, written in real time as events unfolded, all the archives of dailyhowler.com (maybe 'the' in from of that url.
sofla
How many Democrats didn't vote for Gore? Isn't that really the problem? I'm registered Green. Why should I vote for a Democrat who doesn't represent my beliefs? Why couldn't Gore even win his home state?
I agree that there is a tiny difference between the rhetoric if the main parties. Lets see how you like 8 years of Hitlery and the DLC.
While I do see occasional collusion and corruption on the part of Democratic pols, I have to agree with you that the so-called purists sap our political will and leech our candidate's votes.
My argument against the "Duh-oh... Boaf parties izza SAME!" claptrap is to point one hand at the political record of both Bushes, and the other at the political record of Bill Clinton.
And that's all that need be said.
yes Bill Clit on has a great smile and yes he is quite charming but his spear heading and support of the NAFTA one world government platform erases all the other "nice things" he has done.
NAFTA is Fascism..Fascism is Corporate control of the government(s). Does anyone else see this simple truth?
I promise you, this argument isn't going to be very "elaborate."
If you don't like voters in a free society exercising their electoral franchise in accordance with their individual personal preferences, you are, in principle, anti-democracy.
If you seek to blame the lawful actions of a small categorical minority, focusing all attention on one possible factor out of many that could have conceivably made a difference in the outcome of the 200 elections- then you're simply indulging in scapegoating of a small group of ordinary citizens with little or no influence beyond their votes. The acceptance of that facile conclusion also handily obviates the need for forceful self-examination of problems or weaknesses within the campaign, and the national Democratic Party, that might have led to victory.
How about not being so wedded to the one--true-scenario alternative outcome? What makes you think that the Nader voters wouldn't have simply stayed home- like around half of all enfranchised Americans do, on any given Election Day?
Instead of blaring about the necessity for absolute adherence to 2-party orthodoxy, why not bring up the inherent structural weakness in the Electoral College- its continued inclusion of "Senatorial electors"? I understand the argument for the Electoral College- that it works as a check on having elections dominated by small regions of the country with the most concentrated and urban populations. But the need for Senatorial electors- 100 out of 535- escapes me.
You might argue in response that such an argument is practically ineffectual, that the chances of pursuing such an electoral reform are approximately zero- and, of course, that it's fruitless hindsight.
That might be the case- but simply on principle, I find it a lot more valid than scapegoating anyone in Florida who voted for Ralph Nader, for "having blood on their hands." And, I would argue, it couldn't possibly be more fruitless or ineffectual as hindsight.
A parenthetical point:
Al Gore won the popular majority of American voters in the year 2000, by more than a half-million votes. Gore got the 2nd-highest total number of voters in the history of American presidential elections.
Sheerly in terms of tactical ability- what does it say about the Democratic Party that so few Americans realize that fact- and that even fewer were aware of it in the weeks and months immediately following the election? I can't imagine Republicans in a similar situation not seizing on the popular vote total during the time that the election was in play, with bumperstickers like "500,000 MORE", etc. Instead, the Democrats made absolutely nothing of what was a clear and concise tactical advantage. Despite any after-the-fact lawyering or arcane Supreme Court decision leading to a loss for Gore, there was no reason for Gore and the national Democratic Party to have downplayed that fact.
Except, of course, that they could have restrained themselves out of mortal fear that if they did so, they'd be caricatured by the Republicans, with bumperstickers like "Sore Loserman."
Wait- that happened anyway, didn't it?
Well, what is your take on lifelong Democrats who can no longer tolerate the lack of ideas, principles and balls among the DC Dems? I have no "blood" on my hands from 2000. But I cannot stomach the cowardice anymore.
And what's with the apologism for Pelosi?
Post a Comment