February 24, 2008...3:49 pm
I wish a killer whale would eat Ralph Nader.
I can’t believe that Ralph Nader is going to run in this presidential election! I know we’ve all heard it before, but he kinda was key in Bush’s victory in the 2000 election. Nader won 2% of the vote; because of his political positions, you know his supporters would have otherwise voted Democrat. If they’d voted for Gore, even just a few of them in key places, like Florida, he would have one.
Voting ideologically doesn’t do you any favors if you ignore the practical side of your choice. It’s much better to compromise your values, and go for someone who actually has a chance at getting elected, and making some changes, than a no-hoper like Nader. We already have a candidate who’s as un-establishment as could ever make it—Obama is the least “insider” of any contenders we’ve had recently. He’s sufficiently anticorporate, is against lobbying. Anyone thinking of voting for Nader should swallow their pride and vote Obama. I appreciate Nader’s sentiments, somewhat, but he should just go write a blog about it.
Here’s hoping Shamu gets to Nader before he has a chance to steal votes from the Democrats.
4 Comments
February 24, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Obama not an insider?
Obama’s strength is the widespread misconception that he is somehow anti-lobbyist, or an outsider. But tell me, how much money has he raised thus far, and where has it come from? To whom will he be loyal if elected given the huge sums of campaign contributions he’s gotten from special interests?
Didn’t realize that votes were property. Who knew?
February 24, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I understand your pragmatism, but lashing out at Nader is to placing blame on someone who doesn’t deserve it (for what you’re referring to anyway). Bush won because of minority voter suppression led by Florida’s secretary of state, who also just happened to be the Co-Chair of his Florida campaign. Yelling at Nader for that is completely unfair, and just helps to excuse an incredibly disgusting abuse of power.
February 24, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I KNOW! I was furious when I heard this new this morning.
I’m all for Shamu eating Nader - but feel a velocoraptor would do a better job. Might be easier since they’re land-based - unless you plan on luring Nader to the edge of a plank and pushing him into the tank. Velocoraptor hunts are probably infinitely more interesting to observe…
February 25, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Let’s see, according to opensecrets.org, the candidates have raised:
Obama: $137,431,938 (99%) from individuals, $25 (0%) from PACs, $799,632 from “other”.
Clinton: $117,313,786 (87%) from individuals, $1,045,419 (1%) from PACs, $5,000,000 (4%) from self-financing, $11,177,284 (8%) from “other”.
McCain: $48,118,272 (90%) from individuals, $579,424 (1%) from PACs, $5,019,390 from “other”.
It’s clear here that, although PACs don’t donate tremendous proportions of the total amounts to campaigns, Obama has taken a significantly smaller amount from PACs and “other” than the other two candidates who stand a chance. My point was never that Obama is a political “outsider,” simply that he’s the only candidate who’s got a snowball’s chance in hell of making it who is making a big issue of not taking from PACs. Don’t forget that by making a point of it, he’ll be beholden to voters who elected him with that in mind, and if he recants too much, he’ll be vulnerable to attack from his opponents on that very issue.
I do completely agree that lobbyists and PACs have no place in politics, and I would jump at an opportunity to make campaigns totally publicly financed. But don’t kid yourselves. Nader won’t get elected. There is, however, such a thing as “splitting the vote.” My point is that yes, jackofspades, disenfranchisement did occur. It’s atrocious. However, the loss was not unifactorial (if only that was a real word!). Disenfranchisement led to the loss, but there’s no saying that Nader’s splitting the vote didn’t help. And we don’t need it again. I needn’t remind you that Gore didn’t lose by a huge margin at all—he didn’t lose at all if you look at the popular vote. But that’s another can of worms. You surely get my gist by now. Voting for a third-party candidate is just not practical, and you could end up shooting your own ideological beliefs in the foot. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Leave a Reply