|
Grex > Agora35 > #18: The 2000 presidential campaign item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 406 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 25 of 406:
| 
Sep 25 05:30 UTC 2000 |
It seems to me that the problem with Blanchard vs. Engler was low voter
turnout not "voting for a 3rd party candidate". What is "supposed to
happen" with 3rd party candidates is not that they win, but rather the
major two parties start picking up their ideas. In recent years, there
have been an number of strong 3rd party conservative candidates. The
Republicans, rather than arguing about split votes, seem to have adopted
many of those conservative plans, as have indeed the Democrats. That
leaves us today with an at least outwardly conservative Republican
candidate, and a solidly centrist Democractic candidate. Both the
Republican & the Democractic candidates have some fairly unwholesome
ideas about free speech, the media, and government & business.
So, nope; I don't expect to change the world by voting for Nader. I'd
like to think, though, that if more people voted for their principles
rather than whomever they expect to win, perhaps the major candidates
will pay more attention to some of those issues. This can only be good
because some of those principles are fundemental principals of American
democracy, and their disappearance bodes ill for the future.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 26 of 406:
|
Sep 25 05:39 UTC 2000 |
Even if Nader won, I think the best that would be said about him ten or
fifteen years after his single term would be a comparison with President
Coolidge, who is best known for doing nothing. And i don't think that's
what we need right now.
Yeah, both Gore and Bush have some unhealthy ideas. But Bush would actually
try to do something about them, I think. With Gore, common sense will win
out.
|
mdw
|
|
response 27 of 406:
|
Sep 25 09:04 UTC 2000 |
You think a president who will try to restrict the media is preferable?
You think there's some awful looming external emergency that will
overwhelm and destroy us all if the president doesn't act promptly and
forcefully, even if he does the wrong thing?
I don't know how successful a president Nader would be at doing
anything, due to the ghastly prospect of so much of the rest of our
political landscape. I heard Nader talk about health care some time
back, and while I forget most of the details now, I do remember that
what he said struct me as both so much more sensible and good than any
other politician at the time, and extremely unlikely to survive the
lobbying of the health industry which is by now so utterly committed and
dependent on things being done the wrong way. So, actually, I agree
Nader would end up doing "nothing", but not through no will (although I
think that's actually not a fair depiction of Coolidge), but rather
through getting stuck with gridlock and congress over every special
interest. The process of getting a discussion started over these
problems has to start *somewhere*, and I think a candidate Nader who at
least can bring these out into the open is worth something. At the very
least, it would be interesting to see the effect on Gore. If, by some
miracle, Nader became president, perhaps it's worth hoping for a 2nd
miracle, that there might be enough turnover of people in congress in
favour of people willing to stand up to special interest groups and do
what's right for all of us and not just the rich.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 28 of 406:
|
Sep 25 09:16 UTC 2000 |
I'd always heard it was Coolidge himself who said, "They wanted a President
who would do nothing, and I gave it to them," or words to that effect.
I don't think Gore will try to do more to "restrict the media" than provide
moral leadership. The reality is that "the media" will continue to provide
what the public will pay for.
Nader has been saying much the same thing for forty years now. He already
has had an effect on public discourse, and no doubt will continue to do so.
Undoubtedly, the effect would be magnified, coming from the Oval Office.
But there is more to the Office than the office.
I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't see into the future. But I do expect
some external crisis in the next four years, and the four after that, too.
If nothing else, S. Hussein is going to continue to be troublesome.
|
mdw
|
|
response 29 of 406:
|
Sep 25 09:40 UTC 2000 |
I don't think S. Hussein is a reasonable basis for electing an american
president. Last I remember, Iraq wasn't part of the US. Besides, the
cynical part of me wonders how much of that was Hussein using the US as
a convenient and obvious source of bogey men, & how much of that was the
US using Hussein as a convenient foreign fire that could be fanned at
will.
The reality is that media has been changing a lot in the past 40 years.
What we have may look much like the free press of the past, but under
the surface there have been some disquieting changes. The whole idea
that the president might be expected to provide "moral leadership" for
the press is one that ought to give anyone who believes in democracy a
mild case of indigestion. We've already had cases where people have
tried to legislate "morality" into the media - CDA being an outstanding
example. What all of that is translating into is more choke points
being built into the media, more ways for things to be controlled, fewer
people who control those things, & more arbitrary limits on what can be
said and by whom. History does not yield very many encouraging
precedents as to what might happen after that.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 30 of 406:
|
Sep 25 09:52 UTC 2000 |
S. Hussein is just one example of where trouble may occur. You are right
that he, himself, is not a reason to elect a U.S. President, but ignoring
external influences is not a reasonable approach, either.
I had thought your comments on "the media" were aimed more at the
entertainment industry than the press (although it would be a mistake
to ignore the informative aspect of entertainment). I think it quite
appropriate for the President to offer leadership, both moral and otherwise,
to the country as a whole and to the entertainment industry specifically.
I've not heard any comments from Gore that lead me to believe he would
be any additional threat to the freedom of the press.
|
gull
|
|
response 31 of 406:
|
Sep 25 19:35 UTC 2000 |
Re #18: My prediction: They release oil from the reserves. The price to
the consumer stays the same, but the oil companies make slightly more
profit.
I'm planning to vote for Nader. I'm aware he won't win, but I'd like to see
the Green Party get enough of a percentage of the vote to get funding and a
place in the national debates. I think we need a highly visible third party
(other than the Deformed Party) to shake things up. I listened to Nader's
speech on C-SPAN when he spoke at the Green Party rally in Minneapolis, and
was pleasantly surprised at how much real substance there was. Much less
fluff than a major party campaign speech.
|
bru
|
|
response 32 of 406:
|
Sep 25 20:13 UTC 2000 |
re 20: It is going to take three months or longer to process the oil from
the reserve, but with the current oil refineries running at 97% capacity, it
may take longer because there isn't room to produce more.
Thats where the main problem may be. WE need more refineries that we cannot
build because of the Clinton/gore restrictions on environmental grounds.
|
scott
|
|
response 33 of 406:
|
Sep 25 20:23 UTC 2000 |
I agree with gull. I'm very unhappy with the choice of Bush vs. Gore, so I'm
voting Nader.
A vote for a third party candidate is not a throwaway vote; it's a vote
against the Republicrat system we're currently stuck with.
|
jazz
|
|
response 34 of 406:
|
Sep 25 20:28 UTC 2000 |
I can't honestly believe that we have a serious advocate in this
discussion of allowing oil drilling in national parks. Bruce, are you
serious?
|
bru
|
|
response 35 of 406:
|
Sep 25 20:44 UTC 2000 |
not in the national parks, but on federal property that is currently excluded.
Clinton has signed a lot of this land into the Federal monument system that
makes in not available to drilling, even though they know there is oil there.
|
richard
|
|
response 36 of 406:
|
Sep 25 21:41 UTC 2000 |
the mistake you folks are making is defining your choice simply by the
people on the ticket. You arent voting just for them, you are voting
for the entire party. Who would you rather have running Justice, Labor,
State, Commerce Depts .etc? Who would you rather have as Secretary of
the Treasury? A democrat or a republican? Who would you rather have
appointed the next three supreme court justices, democrats or
republicans? Would you rather have a democrat president appointing
federal judges or a republican? Its an entire branch of government you
are voting into office, not just one person!
Voting for Nader is a naive protest vote. All that will do is get Bush
elected and allow Bush to appoint republicans to every level of the
executive branch of government, we are talking thousands of jobs here,
and appoint conservative supreme court justices. I could see a vote for
Nader if there wasnt a danger of Bush getting elected. But we could
easily have a republican president. The only way to prevent this
realistically, the only way to prevent the republican party from
completely running washington d.c., is to vote for the democratic
candidate. A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George Bush!
Whatever you think of Leiberman, he's just one person, one of many, who
will work in a Gore administration. It is Gore who will be making the
appointments and, when you are talking an entire branch of government,
its an important consideration. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
|
aruba
|
|
response 37 of 406:
|
Sep 25 22:38 UTC 2000 |
We can always depend on richard for a mantra...
|
md
|
|
response 38 of 406:
|
Sep 25 22:41 UTC 2000 |
Re #36: Baloney. You're assuming that all Nader voters, if Nader
weren't running, a) would have voted at all, and b) would have voted
for Gore. You're also assuming that a vote for Gore is a prudent
thing. You could make the case that none of those things is true. As
to the party-line Democrat idea that a vote for Nader is a vote wasted
because Nader doesn't have any chance of winning, if you're gonna say
that then you're gonna have to explain why you voted for George
McGovern.
|
wyrefall
|
|
response 39 of 406:
|
Sep 25 23:47 UTC 2000 |
A'ight, now, I have briefly reviewed the comments posted so far, and I have
a few things to say myself that may/may not have already been said, and that
may offend some--my intentions are not to offend.
Firstly; we do not need more oil refineries, we need less greedy consumers.
I am going to have to inherit this administration, and the environment it
leaves behind. I was a girl scout as a child, and in that came to realize
just how completely unbelievable this nation's thirst for oil is. Its
absolutely rediculous. We wage wars, operate international relationships,
and destroy a shrinking world because we can't bring ourselves to deal with
one another and not leave the environment in ruins.
Also, someone mentioned Lieberman being an unacceptable vice president.
Forgive my ignorance on this, my life has been consumed y the 'campus bubble
of college life'.
Another thing; I am a registered Democrat, this will be my first election,
period although I have followed primaries/conventions/etc losely since I was
eight years old. Unfortunately, and as a democrate, I think this race belongs
to Bush. It will be VERY close by the popular opinion, and at least twenty
votes by the college. Al gore is a good man, but he is not a very good
politician. I have my doubts about any family dynasty (and am well justified,
I am descended from a very large one), and the Bushes walk, talk, and smell
like a family dynasty.
At any rate, those are all the comments I wanted to make.
|
scott
|
|
response 40 of 406:
|
Sep 25 23:50 UTC 2000 |
But does a family dynasty make for good Presidents?
So far W. has been outdoing Quayle for dopey statments.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 406:
|
Sep 26 00:18 UTC 2000 |
You like the extreme right-wing demagogues riding into power on W's
coat-tales, along with their anti-woman, anti-science (teaching of
evolution) and anti-rights agendas? (This re #39)
|
anderyn
|
|
response 42 of 406:
|
Sep 26 00:45 UTC 2000 |
For the last several elections, I have voted Libertarian. I'm undecided about
Nader this time around.
|
gull
|
|
response 43 of 406:
|
Sep 26 01:03 UTC 2000 |
Re #36: You're assuming I'm voting for Nader because I think he'll win. I
don't. It's not a vote for President, for me, it's a vote to expand the
political system. If it takes having Bush elected to have that happen, I'm
willing to risk it. I'm looking at the long term, here.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 44 of 406:
|
Sep 26 01:34 UTC 2000 |
I've never understood the "you can't vote for that candidate, they have
no chance of winning!" argument..
What, am I supposed to get a prize if I pick the right candidate?
I vote for the candidate whom I would most like to see elected and
appointing cabinet members and judges. If the rest of the country
doesn't agree with me, I'm honestly OK with that -- it's not about
personal validation of my choice.
(BTW, if I *am* supposed to get a prize, can someone please send me
whatever I was supposed to receive after having voted for Clinton in
1992? I'd like to think that that decision wasn't a total waste..)
|
polygon
|
|
response 45 of 406:
|
Sep 26 02:10 UTC 2000 |
In a parliamentary system with multiple parties, the key compromises
are made after the election, when governing coalitions are formed
between the parties. In a system like ours with a single powerful
president, elected nationwide, politics tends to coalesce into two
competing blocs, and all the compromises are made before the election.
Nader and Buchanan are running as if they were in a parliamentary
system, where getting 10% of the vote might make it possible to
impact policy. But in the U.S. system, those votes make no practical
difference as to how the nuts and bolts of policy will be decided
during the upcoming term. So, the only reward available is a kind
of moral victory, a subtle change in the national debate, some kind of
influence on the major parties.
The phrase I like to use is: They're working on changing the color of the
sky. A possibly worthwhile project, long term, but at the same time a
fool's errand. One person, one candidate, might cause a change in that
pallette, but even if it happens, it is unpredictable, and most often, it
is hard to see how a difference was made. Still, some people persist, and
that dedication is surely admirable.
What tends to happen, in our elections year after year, is that the people
who ultimately go to the polls and vote decide (or realize) that the nuts
and bolts of the upcoming term of office are more important than changing
the color of the sky in the long term. The real race is between the two
major party candidates, like them or not, and in the end, even those who
were attracted by the third and fourth candidates don't want to be left on
the sidelines.
The poll numbers for protest and new-way candidates may be impressive in
August and September, but history has shown again and again, it's downhill
from there. The reason has to do with the inherent contraints of our
political system combined with human nature.
|
md
|
|
response 46 of 406:
|
Sep 26 02:50 UTC 2000 |
Btw, anyone thinking of voting for Ralph Nader had better take a hard
look at the Green Party platform first. There is a lot of good stuff
in it, but also a *lot* of bullshit. The only thing that saves Nader
is that he isn't actually a member of the Green Party. (Or wasn't as
of a month or so ago.)
|
richard
|
|
response 47 of 406:
|
Sep 26 03:46 UTC 2000 |
polygon is right...I mean I used to be idealistic and vote for the most
liberal candidates (heck I voted for Paul Simon in 1988-- the senator, not
the singer, and I was glad when Michigan voted for Jesse Jackson because
I thought his was a noble cause) But after suffering through eight years
of Ronald Reagan, I came to realize that the only thing thats real is
who has the power, that you cant do good things *unless you get elected*
Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan know they wont get elected--they are there
to make noise and get attention, partially because both have pet causes
but also (and dont kid yourself, because both make their livings in
non-election years off their name,on tv and the rubber chicken (paid
speech)circuit)
What is real, what is a fact, is that the next president of the United
States will be either george w. bush or al gore. That is the reality we
will have to live with for the next four years. People's lives and
freedoms are at stake. Our economic prosperity and freedoms could be
at stake. It is irresponsible to ourselves and ourchildren of future
generations to look at this election, and effectively either sititout
or avoid the issue, by not makingthe real choice. This election is
much too important, this choice is muchtooimportant, to say "well
I'll just refuse to vote for either of thetwo who have the chance of
winning, and vote for Bozo the Clown or PatPaulson or Naderor Buchanan
or Mary Remmers. Yes, if Mary votes for Nader, she may ase well cast
awrite in vote for herself for all the good it will do.
The republican and democratic candidates were nominated by their parties
via thevotes of millions of party regulars and registered voters.
They have been vetted, they are the choices we have beengiven. If you
respect the process and respect traditions of this democracy,youshould
be willing to make the responsible choice between the two peoplewhom
the majority of the electorate have asked you to choosefrom!
|
richard
|
|
response 48 of 406:
|
Sep 26 03:54 UTC 2000 |
and if Ralph Nader really wanted to be president,he'd have run in the
democratic primary, where he'd havefoundlots of supportand he'd have been
in debatesand been vetted as to experience and ideas. But as with any
person with a large ego, he wanted thelargest stage and didnt wantto have
togo through the process of earning it. The green party nomination was
there forhis taking, he didnthave toearn it, he didnt even have to be a
member of the party. Those guys arepushing issues and causes. Which is
fine.
Buta presidential election is about who should serve as President, who
has paid his dues and is best capable of making thehard decisions. It isnt
about egos and idol worship and Buchanan the conservative god and Nader the
liberal god. Its about who should sit behind the desk.
|
scg
|
|
response 49 of 406:
|
Sep 26 04:40 UTC 2000 |
I vote because I want to do what I can do to influence the outcome of the
election. Voting for Nader won't do that. Voting for Gore or Bush will.
There are a lot of things I disagree with Gore and Lieberman on. None of
those are issues on which Bush is any better. There are a lot of issues on
which Gore and Lieberman seem incredibly better than Bush, and given the
choice between the two it seems pretty easy.
But for that matter, even if I were voting soley for the candidate I liked
best, without regard for whether my vote would do anything useful, why would
I vote for Nader? Does he workable ideas about how to run the country? Does
he have ideas I ought to agree with? Does he have any experience as a mayor
or city council person, let alone a political position dealing with National
issues? If he did have a chance, voting for him would seem even stranger.
|