Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Gonzo, you are missing the point. How about giving Nader votes, perhaps the dems seeing that they are losing votes or not getting enough votes...Perhaps then understand that they need to take on those issues/stances of the 3rd parties
I understand your point. But I don't feel casting a vote for Nader is going to do anyone any good.
Ralph got nearly 5% of the vote in 2000 and it did nothing to change the Democratic party. In 2004 we had John Kerry who was an even shittier candidate than Gore.
If Nader, The Greens, The Libertarians, actually want to usher in some change and be a viable 3rd Party than they're going to have to mobilze and get some representation in Government.
They're going to have to win on the Local level first and build their way up.
For Example, If you get a 3rd party candidate elected Mayor and that 3rd Party Mayor completly kicks ass and makes a real impact on their Community. Then they now have a chance to get elected Governor or State Senator because their record is proven and they show that they can be successful.
You've got to build it from the ground up in every City and State.
But in the Here and Now
This race is between McCain/Pailn and Obama/Biden.
And right now a McCain/Palin Presidency is unacceptable.
So what the hell do you expect Nader, Mckinney, or Paul to do with absolutley no representation in government?
Even if they were by some "I Dream Of Jeanie" magical miricle get elected. They'd be fucked because they wouldn't have enough of their party represented to get anything passed.
If you really want this thing to happen, you've got to vote these kinds of politicians in on the local level. Build it from the ground up.
These 3rd Parties in America have got to get their shit together in order to get what they want.
It's doing nobody any good having like 30 different guys all running on the Independent, Green, or 3rd Party ticket for President.
It's a losing battle and it's a pointless vote.
You may as well write Mr.T on the ballot.
well - if you think the current political landscape works - then by all means, vote for either party ... i for one thinks it needs to be blown up ... absolutely, 3rd parties need to start at the ground up ... there's no issue there ...
the point is tho that there needs to a mass overhaul of washington - palin's whole campaign is on the fact she isn't supposed to be a washington "insider" basically admitting that's how things are in dc ... so, if that's the case - is a democrat or republican going to change that?
edit: also - it is widely known that the majority of states are going to vote a certain way ... why not in those states vote 3rd party?
I understand your point. But I don't feel casting a vote for Nader is going to do anyone any good.
Ralph got nearly 5% of the vote in 2000 and it did nothing to change the Democratic party. In 2004 we had John Kerry who was an even shittier candidate than Gore.
If Nader, The Greens, The Libertarians, actually want to usher in some change and be a viable 3rd Party than they're going to have to mobilze and get some representation in Government.
They're going to have to win on the Local level first and build their way up.
For Example, If you get a 3rd party candidate elected Mayor and that 3rd Party Mayor completly kicks ass and makes a real impact on their Community. Then they now have a chance to get elected Governor or State Senator because their record is proven and they show that they can be successful.
You've got to build it from the ground up in every City and State.
But in the Here and Now
This race is between McCain/Pailn and Obama/Biden.
And right now a McCain/Palin Presidency is unacceptable.
This is the battle that has to be won.
Very well said. I never understood why Nader seems to disappear and reappear every 4 years for the next Presidential election. I won't argue that the system is broken, but what Nader is doing now isn't going to fix it. Not even close. Imagine, if Nader or a viable 3rd party candidate had mobilized their efforts back in say 2000 and won a local election, and worked their way up to Governor or Senator as you stated, they'd have a much better chance to affect change at the Presidential level now.
Remember what a wise man once said?
"Change don't come at once
It's a wave... building before it breaks"
well - if you think the current political landscape works - then by all means, vote for either party ... i for one thinks it needs to be blown up ... absolutely, 3rd parties need to start at the ground up ... there's no issue there ...
the point is tho that there needs to a mass overhaul of washington - palin's whole campaign is on the fact she isn't supposed to be a washington "insider" basically admitting that's how things are in dc ... so, if that's the case - is a democrat or republican going to change that?
edit: also - it is widely known that the majority of states are going to vote a certain way ... why not in those states vote 3rd party?
Look.
I think we both agree that a 3rd Party is desperatly needed in this country.
Where we disagree is that you believe voting for 3rd Party President is how we usher in the desired Change.
I personally believe that more CHANGE will come by getting 3rd Party candidates elected at the State and Local levels as opposed to Comander and Cheif. That way they can work their way up.
I think this tactic would be the most sucessful approach to reforming the Government as opposed to throwing a vote towards a 3rd Party Presidential Candidate who doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the election.
You've got to build the 3rd Party from the ground up! By doing so, you'll have more of an influence in Government and have an actual chance of reforming the system.
You're not going to change the system right away. You've got to poison it first.
You do that by playing the game.
First gain The Kings trust,
Then get invited to the dinner.
Then sneak up behind the King and slit his throat.
Look.
I think we both agree that a 3rd Party is desperatly needed in this country.
Where we disagree is that you believe voting for 3rd Party President is how we usher in the desired Change.
I personally believe that more CHANGE will come by getting some 3rd Party candidates elected at the State and Local levels as opposed to Comander and Cheif. I think this tactic would be the most sucessful approach to reforming the Government as opposed to throwing a vote towards a 3rd Party Presidential Candidate who doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the election.
You've got to build the 3rd Party from the ground up! By doing so, you'll have more of an influence in Government and have an actual chance of reforming the system.
You're not going to change the system right away. You've got to poison it first.
You do that by playing the game.
First gain The Kings trust,
Then get invited to the dinner.
Then sneak up behind the King and slit his throat.
right
but in a state like california or texas ... why wouldn't you vote 3rd party?
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
Yesterday I confirmed that I will go to the polls becuase there are some Michigan proposals that I need to support, namely Medicinal Marijuana, and Stem Cell research. And now I think in protest of The One and as a person who has never voted for a Republican for POTUS, I'll vote Nadar because I fucking want to, to make a point, and to keep my conscious clear.
thanks for this post.
My mind set sort of, whomever gets in this office has a mountain of a job to do. I want to see them prove they CAN make a change.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
One reason why never to vote for any candidate who is not a Republican or Democrat:
Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have been directly in the public eye for over a year now. Everything they've done in the past, everything they say, everyone they associate with, everything they want to do has all been scrutinized and debated. Everyone knows exactly what is good and bad about both candidates. We've seen them speak hundreds of times on TV, we've seen them debate with each other, we've seen people debating about them.
A person like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul never deals with this intense media focus and attention. Sure they both clearly lay out what they want to do as president. But that's only half the battle. What have they done in the past? We can find out their voting record and stuff like that. But what else is out there that we don't know about them? Some of the stuff that comes up about Democratic or Republican candidates can completely change the entire election. What kinds of things lurk in Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's past? How well would they deal with media criticism or pressure? More broadly, how would they perform in a high pressure situation as President? These people have not been tested. They have not debated on TV, made speeches on TV, nothing. The most I've seen of Ron Paul is an interview on 60 minutes and clips of him speaking in Congress. Ralph Nader I hardly ever see on TV anymore. No one scrutinizes them in the press, no one criticizes the stupid things they say, no one has put them under intense pressure.
This might change if they were projected to actually make an impact on the election. But we may subsequently find that they are completely nonviable candidates with the new media focus.
As sad as it is that we have to be dominated by two parties, the alternatives could be very dangerous if elected, simply because they aren't tried and true.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
Get a 3rd Party Mayor, Governor, or Senator elected in Texas and California first.
Then you're on your way.
Afterall...You can't win the Superbowl if you don't make the Playoffs first Right?
well ... winning isn't the sole purpose here ... as said by others - it's about establishing a legitimacy for the candidate and party ... acnknowledging that their stances are more in tune with the populace than others ...
yes - for sure, 3rd parties need to start winning elections at all levels ...
but you can't tell me that if nader polls 10% in california - that will have zero effect ...
i understand why someone doesn't want mccain/palin in office ... so, in a swing state - sure, don't risk it ... but in some states - the results are a fore gone conclusion ...
if 3rd parties garner a significant portion of votes in one of these states - that would make a huge statement ...
One reason why never to vote for any candidate who is not a Republican or Democrat:
Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have been directly in the public eye for over a year now. Everything they've done in the past, everything they say, everyone they associate with, everything they want to do has all been scrutinized and debated. Everyone knows exactly what is good and bad about both candidates. We've seen them speak hundreds of times on TV, we've seen them debate with each other, we've seen people debating about them.
A person like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul never deals with this intense media focus and attention. Sure they both clearly lay out what they want to do as president. But that's only half the battle. What have they done in the past? We can find out their voting record and stuff like that. But what else is out there that we don't know about them? Some of the stuff that comes up about Democratic or Republican candidates can completely change the entire election. What kinds of things lurk in Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's past? How well would they deal with media criticism or pressure? More broadly, how would they perform in a high pressure situation as President? These people have not been tested. They have not debated on TV, made speeches on TV, nothing. The most I've seen of Ron Paul is an interview on 60 minutes and clips of him speaking in Congress. Ralph Nader I hardly ever see on TV anymore. No one scrutinizes them in the press, no one criticizes the stupid things they say, no one has put them under intense pressure.
This might change if they were projected to actually make an impact on the election. But we may subsequently find that they are completely nonviable candidates with the new media focus.
As sad as it is that we have to be dominated by two parties, the alternatives could be very dangerous if elected, simply because they aren't tried and true.
What? You really need to educate yourself about Nader. You obvioulsy have no idea about his history. His battles.
What? You really need to educate yourself about Nader. You obvioulsy have no idea about his history. His battles.
Your post is very poor.
all i know is that the dems and repubs are definitely tried and true ... tried and true to be corrupt ... how anyone can say these guys haven't been frauding the american people for decades is beyond me ...
If you look at most of the 3rd parties (Paul and Nader specifically), the American public agrees with most of their views and stands on politics issues and believes. This has been discussed in polls for a long time. People don't vote for them simply cause "they can't win" and instead vote for the lessor of two evils. Although I don't agree, I can understand if you live in a battle-ground state, voting in this matter. But with that said, those that don't live in battle ground states - the majority, these people should be voting for the candidate they like and not merely the lessor of two evils. In these states, the difference would not effect the 2 major candidates outcome for that particular electoral college numbers, but it would help build a 3rd party base and more importantly get the necessary funding to maintain it. It won't matter if Obama wins by 30% more votes in NY (for example) over McCain compared to 20%... but that difference for 3rd parties is the direct reason why 3rd parties don't get legitimate funding to maintain long term success and growth.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
well ... winning isn't the sole purpose here ... as said by others - it's about establishing a legitimacy for the candidate and party ... acnknowledging that their stances are more in tune with the populace than others ...yes - for sure, 3rd parties need to start winning elections at all levels ... but you can't tell me that if nader polls 10% in california - that will have zero effect ... i understand why someone doesn't want mccain/palin in office ... so, in a swing state - sure, don't risk it ... but in some states - the results are a fore gone conclusion ...if 3rd parties garner a significant portion of votes in one of these states - that would make a huge statement ...
On a hypothetical level you are correct.
Ralph made some waves in 2000 especially with the Democratic party. Even though he didn't get his 5% or 10% or whatever...he really did have an impact on that election.
That being said...Nothing changed. In 2004...We got John Kerry who was an even worse Candidate than Al Gore.
The fact is the Democratic Party will continue to be the Democratic Party. That won't change no matter how many votes the 3rd Parties take away from them.
Nader in order to be taken seriously is going to have to change his approach.
He's going to have to prove somehow that these things that he is saying can actually work.
The only way he is going to do that is to play the game. Ralph or someone like him is going to have to get elected to office at the State or Local Level first.
That way they can put their plans to work...and then...actually have it WORK.
It's the only way Ralph or any other 3rd Party is going to convince the American People that there is another option.
Ralph made some waves in 2000 especially with the Democratic party. Even though he didn't get his 5% or 10% or whatever...he really did have an impact on that election.
That being said...Nothing changed. In 2004...We got John Kerry who was an even worse Candidate than Al Gore.
The fact is the Democratic Party will continue to be the Democratic Party. That won't change no matter how many votes the 3rd Parties take away from them.
Nader in order to be taken seriously is going to have to change his approach.
He's going to have to prove somehow that these things that he is saying can actually work.
The only way he is going to do that is to play the game. Ralph or someone like him is going to have to get elected to office at the State or Local Level first.
That way they can put their plans to work...and then...actually have it WORK.
It's the only way Ralph or any other 3rd Party is going to convince the American People that there is another option.
Because right now...The argument holds no water.
sooo ... vote for the lesser of two evils - how has that strategy fostered any change?
look at kucinich - the only candidate i could see myself voting for - he's playing the game - but what change has he fostered in the grand scheme of things?
sooo ... vote for the lesser of two evils - how has that strategy fostered any change?
look at kucinich - the only candidate i could see myself voting for - he's playing the game - but what change has he fostered in the grand scheme of things?
yes - for sure, 3rd parties need to start winning elections at all levels ...
but you can't tell me that if nader polls 10% in california - that will have zero effect ...
In 1992, while Ross Perot didn't carry a state, he got 19% of the popular vote, 19%!
Can you tell me exactly what that has done?
I'm going to agree with Gonzo on this one ... you need to get some momentum at the local and state levels before going for the Presidency. Nader's ego would never want to put in that kind of work though.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
sooo ... vote for the lesser of two evils - how has that strategy fostered any change?
look at kucinich - the only candidate i could see myself voting for - he's playing the game - but what change has he fostered in the grand scheme of things?
polaris you're completely missing my point.
It's about winning small battles and being strategic.
It's about getting more progressive politicians like Kucinich into office.
One man can't do this on his own.
You have to have a ground level movement where several progressive politicians like Kucinich get elected into office on the Local and State level.
Sure I'm going to vote Obama in this election. But It's about voting strategic.
This is not a vote for the lesser of the 2 evils.
The work doesn't end after November 4th it's a contiunous battle. Once this election is over, It's now time to focus on the local and state levels to position ourselves for the next 2 years and 4 years.
We've got to work the next 2 years at trying to get some balance to the Obama Administration by to working to get some more 3rd Party Green, and Independent Candidates into the State and Local level.
You have to understand that's it's going to take a hell of alot more than casting a vote towards Nader or Paul or whoever to get a 3rd Party some prominence.
It's about winning small battles and being strategic.
It's about getting more progressive politicians like Kucinich into office.
One man can't do this on his own.
You have to have a ground level movement where several progressive politicians like Kucinich get elected into office on the Local and State level.
Sure I'm going to vote Obama in this election. But It's about voting strategic.
This is not a vote for the lesser of the 2 evils.
The work doesn't end after November 4th it's a contiunous battle. Once this election is over, It's now time to focus on the local and state levels to position ourselves for the next 2 years and 4 years.
We've got to work the next 2 years at trying to get some balance to the Obama Administration by to working to get some more 3rd Party Green, and Independent Candidates into the State and Local level.
You have to understand that's it's going to take a hell of alot more than casting a vote towards Nader or Paul or whoever to get a 3rd Party some prominence.
i would say you are missing my point ...
i have already re-iterated numerous times that i agree that there HAS to be a grassroots movement ... and that nader himself cannot change washington ...
but how can a continuous voting of the 2 party establishment help? ... and how is voting for a 3rd party in already established states a wasted vote? ... voting with your conscience should never be considered a wasted vote ...
again - i can see in swing states - sure, but my examples of california and texas are foregone conclusions ...
In 1992, while Ross Perot didn't carry a state, he got 19% of the popular vote, 19%!
Can you tell me exactly what that has done?
I'm going to agree with Gonzo on this one ... you need to get some momentum at the local and state levels before going for the Presidency. Nader's ego would never want to put in that kind of work though.
well ... for one thing he got national television coverage!! ... which is huge ... he got a national audience for his view points ... something nader doesn't get right now ...
and this is the crux of him running at the federal level - he can campaign and highlight the fraudulent nature of the current 2-party system ... i'm sure he hopes there are people running at the local level but he feels he can do much more running federally ... he knows he won't win - when he's done he goes back to being a consumer advocate ...
Nader could be much more productive if he wasn't running for president every 4 years. He isn't getting anything accomplished.
He should stick to what he knows-holding those in power accountable-its what he's done for most of his life, and he is very good at it.
And this election is too important to be trying to get a third party into the whitehouse. There are certain times in history where-granted a corporate candidate isn't going to bring about any fundamental change-but at least he leaves the opportunity for change open. If we as a people take direct action after Obama is elected, and hold him accountable, real change is possible. But we have to do it-and you know John McCain isn't going to give us that opportunity.
...we have to make this country change, and you can't do much with a ballot.
Two reasons NOT to vote for Nader (or any third party candidate): They can't possibly win, and this election is so close that a vote for a third party is a vote against Obama and for McCain.
And this election is too important to be trying to get a third party into the whitehouse. There are certain times in history where-granted a corporate candidate isn't going to bring about any fundamental change-but at least he leaves the opportunity for change open. If we as a people take direct action after Obama is elected, and hold him accountable, real change is possible. But we have to do it-and you know John McCain isn't going to give us that opportunity.
...we have to make this country change, and you can't do much with a ballot.
How do you plan on changing America? it can not be done with a ballot?
How do you plan on holding him (Obama)accountable? Do you really see Americans holding anyone accountable? 8 years of Bush and the people went with it.
Could not even Impeach Bush!...
If Obama gets into a war with Iran, or kills some innocent people via a missle strike into Pakistan or Iran, maybe you will say "Well, if it was McCain it would be a lot more innocent deaths, i'm glad I voted Obama, less blood on my hands"
Two reasons NOT to vote for Nader (or any third party candidate): They can't possibly win, and this election is so close that a vote for a third party is a vote against Obama and for McCain.
If Obama and the dems are so worried about Nader taking votes from them, then why dont the dems/Obama take on the those Nader Issues? So you know, they will get those votes.
Comments
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
I understand your point. But I don't feel casting a vote for Nader is going to do anyone any good.
Ralph got nearly 5% of the vote in 2000 and it did nothing to change the Democratic party. In 2004 we had John Kerry who was an even shittier candidate than Gore.
If Nader, The Greens, The Libertarians, actually want to usher in some change and be a viable 3rd Party than they're going to have to mobilze and get some representation in Government.
They're going to have to win on the Local level first and build their way up.
For Example, If you get a 3rd party candidate elected Mayor and that 3rd Party Mayor completly kicks ass and makes a real impact on their Community. Then they now have a chance to get elected Governor or State Senator because their record is proven and they show that they can be successful.
You've got to build it from the ground up in every City and State.
But in the Here and Now
This race is between McCain/Pailn and Obama/Biden.
And right now a McCain/Palin Presidency is unacceptable.
This is the battle that has to be won.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
well - if you think the current political landscape works - then by all means, vote for either party ... i for one thinks it needs to be blown up ... absolutely, 3rd parties need to start at the ground up ... there's no issue there ...
the point is tho that there needs to a mass overhaul of washington - palin's whole campaign is on the fact she isn't supposed to be a washington "insider" basically admitting that's how things are in dc ... so, if that's the case - is a democrat or republican going to change that?
edit: also - it is widely known that the majority of states are going to vote a certain way ... why not in those states vote 3rd party?
Very well said. I never understood why Nader seems to disappear and reappear every 4 years for the next Presidential election. I won't argue that the system is broken, but what Nader is doing now isn't going to fix it. Not even close. Imagine, if Nader or a viable 3rd party candidate had mobilized their efforts back in say 2000 and won a local election, and worked their way up to Governor or Senator as you stated, they'd have a much better chance to affect change at the Presidential level now.
Remember what a wise man once said?
"Change don't come at once
It's a wave... building before it breaks"
Another campaign poster!!!
Look.
I think we both agree that a 3rd Party is desperatly needed in this country.
Where we disagree is that you believe voting for 3rd Party President is how we usher in the desired Change.
I personally believe that more CHANGE will come by getting 3rd Party candidates elected at the State and Local levels as opposed to Comander and Cheif. That way they can work their way up.
I think this tactic would be the most sucessful approach to reforming the Government as opposed to throwing a vote towards a 3rd Party Presidential Candidate who doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the election.
You've got to build the 3rd Party from the ground up! By doing so, you'll have more of an influence in Government and have an actual chance of reforming the system.
You're not going to change the system right away. You've got to poison it first.
You do that by playing the game.
First gain The Kings trust,
Then get invited to the dinner.
Then sneak up behind the King and slit his throat.
right
but in a state like california or texas ... why wouldn't you vote 3rd party?
My mind set sort of, whomever gets in this office has a mountain of a job to do. I want to see them prove they CAN make a change.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Because the 3rd party won't win.
Get a 3rd Party Mayor, Governor, or Senator elected in Texas and California first.
Then you're on your way.
Afterall...You can't win the Superbowl if you don't make the Playoffs first Right?
Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have been directly in the public eye for over a year now. Everything they've done in the past, everything they say, everyone they associate with, everything they want to do has all been scrutinized and debated. Everyone knows exactly what is good and bad about both candidates. We've seen them speak hundreds of times on TV, we've seen them debate with each other, we've seen people debating about them.
A person like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul never deals with this intense media focus and attention. Sure they both clearly lay out what they want to do as president. But that's only half the battle. What have they done in the past? We can find out their voting record and stuff like that. But what else is out there that we don't know about them? Some of the stuff that comes up about Democratic or Republican candidates can completely change the entire election. What kinds of things lurk in Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's past? How well would they deal with media criticism or pressure? More broadly, how would they perform in a high pressure situation as President? These people have not been tested. They have not debated on TV, made speeches on TV, nothing. The most I've seen of Ron Paul is an interview on 60 minutes and clips of him speaking in Congress. Ralph Nader I hardly ever see on TV anymore. No one scrutinizes them in the press, no one criticizes the stupid things they say, no one has put them under intense pressure.
This might change if they were projected to actually make an impact on the election. But we may subsequently find that they are completely nonviable candidates with the new media focus.
As sad as it is that we have to be dominated by two parties, the alternatives could be very dangerous if elected, simply because they aren't tried and true.
-Reagan
well ... winning isn't the sole purpose here ... as said by others - it's about establishing a legitimacy for the candidate and party ... acnknowledging that their stances are more in tune with the populace than others ...
yes - for sure, 3rd parties need to start winning elections at all levels ...
but you can't tell me that if nader polls 10% in california - that will have zero effect ...
i understand why someone doesn't want mccain/palin in office ... so, in a swing state - sure, don't risk it ... but in some states - the results are a fore gone conclusion ...
if 3rd parties garner a significant portion of votes in one of these states - that would make a huge statement ...
What? You really need to educate yourself about Nader. You obvioulsy have no idea about his history. His battles.
Your post is very poor.
all i know is that the dems and repubs are definitely tried and true ... tried and true to be corrupt ... how anyone can say these guys haven't been frauding the american people for decades is beyond me ...
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
On a hypothetical level you are correct.
Ralph made some waves in 2000 especially with the Democratic party. Even though he didn't get his 5% or 10% or whatever...he really did have an impact on that election.
That being said...Nothing changed. In 2004...We got John Kerry who was an even worse Candidate than Al Gore.
The fact is the Democratic Party will continue to be the Democratic Party. That won't change no matter how many votes the 3rd Parties take away from them.
Nader in order to be taken seriously is going to have to change his approach.
He's going to have to prove somehow that these things that he is saying can actually work.
The only way he is going to do that is to play the game. Ralph or someone like him is going to have to get elected to office at the State or Local Level first.
That way they can put their plans to work...and then...actually have it WORK.
It's the only way Ralph or any other 3rd Party is going to convince the American People that there is another option.
Because right now...The argument holds no water.
Even better campaign poster!
http://www.cthulhu.com/
sooo ... vote for the lesser of two evils - how has that strategy fostered any change?
look at kucinich - the only candidate i could see myself voting for - he's playing the game - but what change has he fostered in the grand scheme of things?
That's a very good example.
---
In 1992, while Ross Perot didn't carry a state, he got 19% of the popular vote, 19%!
Can you tell me exactly what that has done?
I'm going to agree with Gonzo on this one ... you need to get some momentum at the local and state levels before going for the Presidency. Nader's ego would never want to put in that kind of work though.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
polaris you're completely missing my point.
It's about winning small battles and being strategic.
It's about getting more progressive politicians like Kucinich into office.
One man can't do this on his own.
You have to have a ground level movement where several progressive politicians like Kucinich get elected into office on the Local and State level.
Sure I'm going to vote Obama in this election. But It's about voting strategic.
This is not a vote for the lesser of the 2 evils.
The work doesn't end after November 4th it's a contiunous battle. Once this election is over, It's now time to focus on the local and state levels to position ourselves for the next 2 years and 4 years.
We've got to work the next 2 years at trying to get some balance to the Obama Administration by to working to get some more 3rd Party Green, and Independent Candidates into the State and Local level.
You have to understand that's it's going to take a hell of alot more than casting a vote towards Nader or Paul or whoever to get a 3rd Party some prominence.
i would say you are missing my point ...
i have already re-iterated numerous times that i agree that there HAS to be a grassroots movement ... and that nader himself cannot change washington ...
but how can a continuous voting of the 2 party establishment help? ... and how is voting for a 3rd party in already established states a wasted vote? ... voting with your conscience should never be considered a wasted vote ...
again - i can see in swing states - sure, but my examples of california and texas are foregone conclusions ...
well ... for one thing he got national television coverage!! ... which is huge ... he got a national audience for his view points ... something nader doesn't get right now ...
and this is the crux of him running at the federal level - he can campaign and highlight the fraudulent nature of the current 2-party system ... i'm sure he hopes there are people running at the local level but he feels he can do much more running federally ... he knows he won't win - when he's done he goes back to being a consumer advocate ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERlGndQ_xtM
You know, $1M, Nader could have raised that and gone on ONE of the big three channels for a half hour ....
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
He should stick to what he knows-holding those in power accountable-its what he's done for most of his life, and he is very good at it.
And this election is too important to be trying to get a third party into the whitehouse. There are certain times in history where-granted a corporate candidate isn't going to bring about any fundamental change-but at least he leaves the opportunity for change open. If we as a people take direct action after Obama is elected, and hold him accountable, real change is possible. But we have to do it-and you know John McCain isn't going to give us that opportunity.
...we have to make this country change, and you can't do much with a ballot.
How do you plan on changing America? it can not be done with a ballot?
How do you plan on holding him (Obama)accountable? Do you really see Americans holding anyone accountable? 8 years of Bush and the people went with it.
Could not even Impeach Bush!...
If Obama gets into a war with Iran, or kills some innocent people via a missle strike into Pakistan or Iran, maybe you will say "Well, if it was McCain it would be a lot more innocent deaths, i'm glad I voted Obama, less blood on my hands"
If Obama and the dems are so worried about Nader taking votes from them, then why dont the dems/Obama take on the those Nader Issues? So you know, they will get those votes.
Obama was not for a Bush impeachment, he does not believe Bush or Dick did anything serious enough to be impeached.
We know how that's turned out.