MPH from PuddingTime! has a great question in a comment over in my posting about Kerrry’s presumptive nomination.
"I'm wondering what's different to you about this race vs. 2000. The last we corresponded on the issue over on Puddingtime! you were pretty adamant that the Democrats, in their 'lesser of two evil' role, weren't deserving of your vote"
This is a very good question that I was actually planning on already addressing in a blog entry. Now seems like a very good time.
True, I did make some pretty firm comments about how I was going to vote, but since July I have changed my mind. I now feel that any Democrat will be better than Bush, and I need to do my part to support that candidate. There isn't one single thing that changed my mind, just the over whelming preponderance of evidence that the terrible decisions made by the current administration are going to destroy this country.
I am also not convinced that Nader or any of the real Green candidates are the best candidate. In my July '03 comments I said I didn't want to vote for the second worst candidate. Now it looks like I won't have to worry about doing that, since Kerry is no where near as bad of a candidate as Nader or the Greens.
So what happens if Kerry ends up acting like Gore and loosing the election to Bush. Well, I will probably be pretty pissed off (more with myself than anybody).
Also, I would still argue that blaming Nader for the Bush being president ignores 3 major factors. First, the fact that Gore failed to challenge Bush in a meaningful way and caused a lot of undecided voters to not vote or vote for someone else. Second, the debacle in Florida that took the votes away from thousands of voters. Finally, the terrible Supreme Court decision that actually put Bush into office. I think that if Nader was a factor in the election, his influence was far smaller than these three.
I'm still a registered Green, not voting in the Democratic primaries, but now is the time to get rid of Bush.
Posted by Noah Brimhall at March 10, 2004 03:54 PMI was really despondent after Gore lost. And it was his fault, not Nader's. It was a really trivial event, and I'm quite disappointed. I really hope that chimp can make more debates this time. And hopefully the questions won't be scripted.
Posted by: Andy at March 10, 2004 05:41 PMYou wimps. Ooops, excuse me. Dear Sirs,
What did Dean say? Kerry is a politician who changed his stripes as a matter of convenience not conviction.
It's the Democrats that are pulling the wool over your eyes again. When will you ever learn?
Posted by: Scott Beckman at March 24, 2004 01:55 PMI agree completely with your assessment. The question of 'Why not vote for Nader this year if you voted for him in 2000?' is easily answered.
First, John Kerry is not Al Gore. If Gore couldn't win his home state, then he was obviously not making strong enough of an impression. Also, if he lost voters to Nader, that's Gore's fault for not engaging them.
Second, George W. Bush has had a term in which to actually judge him as a president. In 2000, we could only decide to vote for Bush based on what he did as governor of Texas and what he said he'd do if elected (his private life prior to government service was apparently not relevant). Unfortunately, he has not only failed to accomplish many of his stated goals ("change the tone in Washington" "uniter, not a divider") but has completely reversed himself on others ("won't use our troops for nation-building").
If Nader wants to run, that's his prerogative. But anyone that is considering voting for him this year based on the idea that there is a negligible difference between Kerry and Bush needs to face facts - of which there are plenty.
I don't even want to think how much more "executive privilege" Bush will start using if he's elected to a second term and has a "mandate from the people."
Posted by: Eddie Hargreaves at March 25, 2004 09:37 PM