Never

My great grandfather always said to "never vote a straight ticket" and "vote for the man, not the party".
Wise words I think.

niggle

I'm still an UNrepentant Nader voter. And I've moved from North Dakota (easily Republican in any event) to Minnesota (not as lineral as it use to be).

elwoodblues

After what happend in 2000, I'm surprised it took Nader this long to make this 'hint'. If Nader's serious, it'd be a major, major boost for Dean; at that point, I'd probably call it his race to lose.

Krieger

Clark, this might sound surprising to you, but George W. Bush is no more of a "global tyrant" than Bill Clinton was. Recall Clinton's illegal invasion of Yugoslavia? They couldn't get UN support, so they had to use trusty old NATO to promote American economic interests that time.

But where were all the anti-war protesters? Well, the real lefties tried to organize then, but since Clinton was a Democrat it was hard to get mass opposition to that invasion.

And don't forget NAFTA, Welfare Deform, the Anti-Terrorism Act (the "beta" version of the Patriot Act), the Telecommunications Reform Act (which allowed for the rise of Clear Channel Communications), the economic sanctions against Iraq (which killed an estimated one million civilians in the 90s). William Jefferson Clinton supported all of those things, and countless others (he destroyed the largest pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, etc, etc, etc,). Clinton is more than guilty of being a global tyrant!

And the whole "blame Nader" campaign by the Democrats is quite silly (at best). It was the entire electoral system's fault that the 2000 election turned out the way it did. There was corruption at the state level (e.g. Florida), the corporate media only gave positive coverage to the Democrat-Republican campaign, the laughable "Electoral College" - a relic of 18th century "democracy". Not to mention that Bush and Gore only represented big business. Many on the left were rightfully pissed at the electoral system and at Al Gore, and they had every right to vote for Nader and I have seen no indication that those votes were somehow "stolen" from Gore. Most Nader voters typically did not vote at all, and Al Gore's last minute anti-Nader smear-campaign made a lot of those non-voters - who were going to vote Green - actually vote for Gore! So Gore truly did "steal" votes from Nader, not the other way around! Furthermore, Al Gore was the VP of a very popular president, he should have won the 2000 election by at least 5% (including the people that voted for Nader). Bush was a nothing more than a bumbling governor from Texas, and a child of an unpopular president.

Let's just face it, Gore was a "stiff" loser. Besides his right-wing views on almost all issues, the guy completely lacked a personality. He offered nothing to the people, besides being (allegedly) a "lesser evil". There is no doubt in my mind that if Gore/Lieberman had won the 2000 election that we would be in the same situation that we are now (US forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan). Part of Albert Gore's own campaign was "nation building" (securing territory for American economic interests).

I have not yet seen any argument, which has convinced me that Nader was somehow to "blame" for the 2000 election results. And I've been defending Nader for a long time already...

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

You cannot tell me, that of the tens of thousands of Florida voters who voted for Nader would, less than 600 of them would have voted for Gore had Nader not run such a high profile campaign. It's crockery to think so.

Now, Gore did run a sloppy campaign, BUT had Nader's not been so high profile, you cannot HONESTLY tell me that 600 people from the Nader camp would not have voted for Gore had they not heard much about Nader.
It's that simple.

niggle

I don't think anyone is arguing that if Nader doesn't run, Gore still loses. However, the point is

1) that if Nader voters vote for the Democrats no matter what, then it gives the Democratic voters no incentive to be any better than they are. They can continue to put up lousy candidates. (The candidate for governor in Minnesota, Roger Moe, was just terrible.)

2) The alledged difference between Bush and Gore (or whoever the Republican and Democrat candidates are) are highly exaggerated. Both parties cater to the middle and give lip service to their core members.

3) It is, quite frankly, rather insulting for Democrats to expect Green Party voters to just hand over their votes because people from a different party want them to. Instead of trying to instill fear like a Christian using Pascal's Wager, why not try arguing why the Democrat candidate is better than the Green Party candidate, or try to convince us that the Democrats will do better than they have in the past. Why not? Because that would the choice of integrity. A concept pretty much gone within the Democratic Party.

paul30

Always keep in mind that Bush did not really win in 2000, and he will be even dirtier next time.

He is very likely to steal the election again, if he doesn't just cancel them.

Rhaedas

Your points are valid, niggle. A vote for a worthless Democrat candidate is a throwaway vote as well. If the Democrats can't put someone up there who can easily defeat Bush on policies, especially as of late, then they don't deserve a vote.

We're all hoping that the opposite will happen...that there won't be a debate between non-Bushites on who they should back.

Maugan

I can't say I blame Nader for running or anyone for voting for him. It isn't Nader's or his voters fault that the system has been rigged over the years by democrats and republicans in a way that ensures their long term dominance. The problem is that untill this rigged system is changed, the third party candidates have such a massive hurdle to jump that their disadvantage is severe to the point of hopelessness. Im not saying it does not suck that the system is rigged, but we have to work in the reality of the system untill the time that it is changed. (which i hope is sooner rather than later.)

I would hate to ask a man to sacrafice his ideology for a material gain, but there are times that ideology isn't the most pressing issue of the moment. When a strange man is in your home with a gun it is not the proper time to discuss the merits of punishment vs rehabilitation, its time to get the dangerous man out of your home by any means neccessary. I dont doubt that Gore would have made his own host of mistakes, some probably very similar. I do, however, doubt that he would have alienated the entire world, put us on a corse for endless war, and sold out what was left of our good name with quite the same efficency and enthusiasim as the Bush admin is displaying.

dcwolf

If Gore was currently our president, John Ashcroft would certainly not have the job he does now, and PA I would just be a gleem in his eye. The govt wouldn't be so secretive. Even fellow repugs are getting miffed at the growing volume of classified docs.

If you believe Gore would have invaded Iraq without UN approval, it's because that's what you want to believe. It's convenient for you. Rumsfeld et al wouldn't have been there to push for the Iraq invasion.

Moderate republicans and democrats oppose Bush's policies so frequently, it's becoming a circus. Ever notice the senate usually significantly revises bills that come to them? If McCain was president, the senate would be at his control, but Bush is too far to the right for them.

At this point, Dean strikes me as the most vertebral, and definitely worthy of serious consideration. Kerry would also be good domestically, but he might turn to jelly if he goes against Bush.