The W
Views: 97706318
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.7.14 1221
The W - Current Events & Politics - An open letter to Ralph Nader voters
This thread has 8 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2225 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (15 total)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on
From Charles Taylor (salon.com). (They may make you watch some flash ad to actually read the article there - be forewarned.)

Dear Nader Voters,

How are you? It's been a long time since we've talked. Almost two-and-a-half years, back during that whole Florida mess. I was pretty nasty to you at the time, complaining about your lack of foresight, your shunning the potential consequences of voting for Nader, your insistence that there would be no difference between a President Bush or a President Gore. I was particularly critical of one Nader voter who, hearing about the Florida voting stalemate, exclaimed "I'm part of history!"

I was wrong. She, and all of you, are indeed part of history. I realized that when I picked up this morning's New York Times. Story after story sang out with examples of the way you've made American history.

Like this one: "Lopsided Vote by Senators Against Type of Abortion." The Senate went and voted against what they call "partial-birth" abortions again. You all know they did it twice before while Bill Clinton was president and he vetoed it. History might not have changed if you didn't help George W. Bush get into the White House. But now, with an anti-choice president, we can count on the bill being signed into law after the House passes it next month. The procedure won't even be allowed when the health of the mother is in danger. If Al Gore had been in the White House, he probably would have upheld Clinton's veto. Thanks to you, history will change.

And that's not all you've done. With a Republican president who you all did so much to elect, we can now look forward to a judiciary packed with conservative zealots. Like Priscilla Owen, the Texas Supreme Court justice who is now going to get a second chance at federal appeals court thanks to the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee. Justice Owen is another example of how much you've managed to change history for women's reproductive rights. In Texas, she dissented from the state's law that a teenager can obtain an abortion without notifying her parents because the teenage girl in front of her had not shown she understood the religious objections to abortion. Not only will you have a chance to change reproductive rights, but you may have made it easier to get around that pesky old church-state separation.

There are still other things to thank you for, like the likely passage of a bill that would cap all pain and suffering awards in medical malpractice cases at $250,000, a bill Bush wants to sign. I sure hope the family of that girl who died after having the wrong organs transplanted into her gets to thank each and every one of you for that. I know the HMOs and the pharmaceutical companies sure must be grateful -- and who'da ever thunk they'd have reason to feel grateful to old Ralph?

But let's face it: The place where you've made the most difference is Iraq. I know, I know, you don't want to claim credit because there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue. In fact, only two of the declared Democratic presidential candidates oppose the war. But now isn't the time for false modesty. We all know that if Gore had become president and continued the Clinton policy of containment, that Saddam would just be a peripheral pest and your biggest claim to changing history would never have happened. (We in New York especially acknowledge your actions as we await the home-front consequences of an invasion of Iraq.)

Now I know we've had our differences, but I know that you acted out of a genuine desire to be progressive, out of a genuine concern for the direction of America, and out of a belief in the importance of not compromising your ideals. You're all so idealistic that you believe a new progressive movement can be built without significant support from African-Americans, women, gays, or organized labor. If that isn't idealism, I'd like to know what is.

And I know you've been chastised by those old-style Democrats like me for being blind to the consequences of your actions. But a unique chance exists right now for you to show your true colors, to prove that you are entirely aware of the consequences of your actions and are willing to face them: Volunteer for the invasion of Iraq.

The news in the past few weeks has been showing us tearful separations of reservists and their families. Many of the men and women going over to the Gulf are ambivalent about the necessity of war, but they feel obligated by a sense of duty. They've even been honest enough to admit they are frightened of possibly facing biological or chemical weapons.

Wouldn't it be great if just one of them didn't have to go, didn't have to separated from their sweethearts or families because all you Nader voters put Bush in office and helped pave the way for the invasion of Iraq? Wouldn't it be great to show America your guts by taking one of these brave soldiers' place, by declaring that you're not willing to let anybody else die for your actions?

I sneered in 2000 when one of you guys said on CNN that you were willing to risk a Bush victory because you believed "things have to get worse before they get better." But I'm not sneering now. Now's the chance for you overwhelmingly white, middle-class, college-educated Nader voters to show that you really do care and aren't just willing to let someone else do the dying for you. You put Bush in the White House, so why not sign up for his invasion -- what better way to "make things get worse"? In this time of uncertainty and fear, your country salutes you.




Promote this thread!
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 32 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on
Even though it's a different TYPE of whining about the 2000 elections, the statue of limitations has still expired. Worse than that, I have NO IDEA what point he's hoping to make by suggesting Nader voters sign up and head for the front line.

I wish he'd have found some other approach, because it's too easy for me to boil this down to "endorsement of the two-party system" and thus find no credibility in his argument, however cogent it may be. But alas, such is the burden of carrying my own biases into my reading. :)

(edited by CRZ on 17.3.03 0729)



©CRZ™
Dexley's Midnight Jogger
Pepperoni
Moderator








Since: 10.10.02
From: New Hampshire

Since last post: 173 days
Last activity: 88 days
#3 Posted on
I voted for Nader, and if he did drop out, I would have voted for Harry Browne instead. Not Al Gore, which some people think was the next logical choice.

People gave (and still give) me quite a hard time about my choice. But I chose the candidate I believed in.

Ugh. That article made my head hurt.



Kool-Aid, anyone?
Enojado Viento
Potato korv








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 632 days
Last activity: 50 days
#4 Posted on
So they attack the symptom of people coming out for Nader and don't even look at the cause, and wrap it all up in the terrorism bow. Nice.

It never ceases to amaze me that people forget one of the big lessons of Election 2000, (besides the obvious one) Namely that Gore had nothing to distinguish him from Bush at all, and in fact spent many of their debates agreeing with them?

Anyone remember those debates? It made one long for the propect of an Albert/Steiner iron man match.

The problem is this--the Dems have no ideals, no vision, no nothing. They can't run on "we're not Bush" and expect to win. The only way to win would force them to actually adopt some ideals and take a stand on some issues for once. You know, differentiate themselves from the opposition.

Nahh. Never happen. Easier to blame folks who voted their conscience.

(edited by Enojado Viento on 17.3.03 1338)



-LS

"Yeah, well, the movie lied."
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2741 days
Last activity: 2584 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by Dexley's Midnight Jogger
    I voted for Nader, and if he did drop out, I would have voted for Harry Browne instead. Not Al Gore, which some people think was the next logical choice.

    People gave (and still give) me quite a hard time about my choice. But I chose the candidate I believed in.

    Ugh. That article made my head hurt.



You realize the difference between Nader and Browne dwarfs the difference between Bush and Gore?



"... 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
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1226 days
Last activity: 26 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on
One of the main thrusts of that "article" was the anti-abortion issue, but seriously: I am against making abortion illegal, but partial-birth abortions are simply another form of brutal murder. You take a viable fetus, squeeze it halfway out and puncture its brain!?!?!?! And you are FOR this? I am all for the rights of women, but if you have carried the baby this far along, just finish the job and give it up for adoption. There is a line, between scraping a cell and outright killing...

And if you want to look at it from another standpoint, the Congress (which is more of a representation of the people than the President) voted for the bill a total of 3 times, only to be vetoed. Doesn't that indicate to you that the majority of people WANT that ban?




ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 660 days
Last activity: 660 days
#7 Posted on
I thought that people were supposed to vote for the candidate they most wanted, not the candidate they thought would win. Sheesh, silly me.

And why bring this up now? Heck, why not rag on people who voted for Perot in '92 about the controversial things Clinton did. Sheesh, silly you.



Fashion Reporter Extraordinare

Do you know where your Chainmail, +1 vs. Cruiserweights is?

OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    One of the main thrusts of that "article" was the anti-abortion issue, but seriously: I am against making abortion illegal, but partial-birth abortions are simply another form of brutal murder. You take a viable fetus, squeeze it halfway out and puncture its brain!?!?!?! And you are FOR this? I am all for the rights of women, but if you have carried the baby this far along, just finish the job and give it up for adoption. There is a line, between scraping a cell and outright killing...

    And if you want to look at it from another standpoint, the Congress (which is more of a representation of the people than the President) voted for the bill a total of 3 times, only to be vetoed. Doesn't that indicate to you that the majority of people WANT that ban?



Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. That's why (among a myriad of reasons) you voted for Bush.

That, on the other hand, is *not* the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Nader voters, to whom the letter was directed. They're the progressives, who helped elect a guy who's moving the country violently to the right. They're, for the most part, the ones protesting the war, and I just felt compelled to remind them that we wouldn't be in this situation if they understood the basic structure of the American electoral system.

Believe me, I'm not wild about the two-party system, but that's what we've got and I have no idea how swinging an election in the GOP's favor was supposed to change things.

Anyway, it's more of a "You fucked up, let's not do that again in 2004" than anything else.



Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3744 days
Last activity: 2810 days
#9 Posted on
"They're the progressives, who helped elect a guy who's moving the country violently to the right."

As a "small l" Libertarian, I find this statement laughable. Bush is by no means economically conservative. He's expanded the budget by 4%, only 1 of which can be attributed to defense spending. He's pushing for more government involvement in medicine, billions of dollars for Africa, mentors for troubled kids, and all sorts of non-conservative ideas. If anything, the guy is fiscally Liberal, with the exception of the tax cuts. Implying that Bush is "violently to the right" is a joke, and making it seem like Nader voters are the only reason the partial birth abortion ban passed through is ridiculous. If Bush believed in "strict interpretation" as he says he does, he would reject the bill and let states decide individually. Bush believes in cutting taxes, higher spending, and defending the country...how does this make him a "violent" right-winger.

And I love the term "conservative zealots". Ruth Bader Ginsburg is further to the left than ANY of Bush's nominations have been to the right. Really, are you people ever going to get over Florida? I bet some Democrats are still trying to find ways to recount.
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 83 days
Last activity: 5 days
#10 Posted on


    posted originally by OlFuzzyBastard
    Anyway, it's more of a "You fucked up, let's not do that again in 2004" than anything else.



And there is nothing that works better at winning people over than calling them fuck ups.

Really, is this letter suppose to win over anybody? Looks pretty insulting to me. I can't see how this accomplishes anything but probably driving the wedge deeper between Democrats and Nader's supporters.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3744 days
Last activity: 2810 days
#11 Posted on
Can Republicans blame people that vote Libertarian when they lose by small margins?
Chico Santana
Boudin rouge








Since: 2.7.02
From: Jaaaaamacia Mon, No Problem.

Since last post: 3965 days
Last activity: 3963 days
#12 Posted on
I voted for Ralph Nader and I'm damn F'n proud of it.
The way the DemocRats blame us just puts a smile on my face,they act like they are a party for the people then tell us how wrong we are? If they are so smart then why march out a fucking clown for prez? Oh wait, I'm wrong, he created the internet(with out him we wouldn't be HERE), And his dad wasn't on the board and in the pocket of a big oil company, and his dad wasn't in politics(So don't give us Bush is a Oil guy and Gore is not).Yeah he is the one who was less evil(Not!). The way the Democrats try and talk shit do they really think the Independents are just going to drop the belief's that they hold? I just might vote Bush next time to give them another 4 fucking years! You can't tell someone that they are wrong when politics are based on someone's personal opinions and beliefs. Was Nader really fit to be prez? Maybe or maybe not, I don't care but I would vote for him over Al Gore everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.



"SAL BANDINI, WANNA WRESTLE?"
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3744 days
Last activity: 2810 days
#13 Posted on
I thank god for the Ralph Nader voters, actually. If Gore had been president, we probably would have surrendered September 12th, and then proceeded to launch a war on Global Warming.
PeterStork
Sujuk








Since: 25.1.02
From: Chicagoland with Hoosiers, or "The Region"

Since last post: 614 days
Last activity: 22 hours
#14 Posted on
The backlash against Nader voters (of which I was one) reminds me why I sit back and agree with Democrats the majority of the time and then still say "there's no way in hell I'm voting for any of those wankers." You know, the whole "join our club or else" attitude that might not be purposeful but is still present (and there with the GOP, too, of course.)

Had you nominated Bill Bradley, I might have voted the Big D. (Might...hadn't looked into him enough. Looked into Gore. Not good enough. Good, but not good enough.) I didn't have a chance to nominate him: Illinois does a split ticket, and I won't take just one party ballot, and besides our primary is so late it was already decided (the reason I couldn't vote McCain, which I might have taken a GOP ballot to do.)

Besides, the reverse is true: had all the people who voted for Gore voted for Nader instead, then Bush would not be president. Yeah. That's the ticket.

(edited by PeterStork on 18.3.03 0113)

{ exit 670 dot com }

If you watch American Idol instead of Gilmore Girls you should be SHOT WITH A GIANT CANNON.

messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 457 days
Last activity: 323 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on
Nader didn't cause Gore to lose. Gore running a godawful campaign, lying about the stupidest shit, doing nothing to prove he'd read his own book on the environment, having no spine and having the personality of a slug caused Gore to lose. That also caused people to vote for Nader. Cause and effect here people, please learn it.
Pages: 1Thread ahead: 48 hrs...
Next thread: Arrogant Superpower?
Previous thread: Why Dems in '04 could be in trouble
(2225 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Who's to say Lamont can't win the general? The fact that he came from literally out of nowhere four months ago to knock off a three-term incumbent and former VP candidate in a primary is a pretty eye-popping feat.
The W - Current Events & Politics - An open letter to Ralph Nader votersRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.131 seconds.