posted
I'm a political animal, and an unashamed part of me is really beginning to enjoy the passions on all sides of the debate playing out. I know others won't see this the same way, but the following news article is a traditional and expected part of the political process when things get tight. In other words, it's a smart move on the part of conservatives, not an immoral one.
If the Dems play this smart, they will not criticize conservatives for boosting Nader, but will use it as part of their attack on Nader himself.
quote:Groups allied with President Bush are encouraging their conservative members to do the seemingly unthinkable: attend a convention Saturday to help put left-leaning independent candidate Ralph Nader on the Oregon presidential ballot.
The groups -- with the encouragement of some Republican political operatives -- are telling their members that Nader would draw votes from Democrat Sen. John Kerry and boost Bush's chances of winning Oregon.
Polls show Bush and Kerry running close here, and both campaigns think the race could be affected by whether Nader makes the ballot. In April, Nader held a Portland convention that failed to attract the 1,000 registered voters required to put him on the November ballot. Democratic activists picketed the event and urged voters not to support Nader.
Nader plans to try again at 5 p.m. Saturday in Portland's Benson High School, and this time he has openly courted conservatives as well as voters who oppose Bush on such issues as the environment and the war in Iraq.
Officials from two groups that have been calling members -- the Oregon Family Council and Citizens for a Sound Economy -- said they had no qualms about trying to help Nader despite opposing most of what he stands for.
posted
This is nothing new. John Anderson took votes away from the democratic candidate. Ross Perot took votes away from republican candidates (twice). Four years ago, Nader took votes from Gore and Buchanan took votes from Bush. For a political party to encourage this against the opposite party is not surprising.
Four years ago, we had an interesting scenario in New Mexico. The state was considered an "on the bubble" state (it ended up going to Gore by about 250 votes). Texas, next door, was obviously in the Bush camp. Several Texans who supported Gore, even though they knew it was a losing proposition, came up with an idea. They contacted Nader supporters in New Mexico and offered to "trade" votes. They would vote for Nader in Texas if the other person voted for Gore in New Mexico (I heard that some money was involved also).
Let's hope that this vote buying will not happen again this year!
I personally find all candidates to be detestable human beings and will probably write in "none of the above" as a protest vote.
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agree that all the primary candidates for president are unworthy. One, Bush, is a lier whose betrayed many of his promises (I'm not talking about Iraq. [Though that too is a debacle of his--not his fault, but his administration.])
The other, Kerry, is insanly liberal and has done little to no good in Massachuttess.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it would be wise for Kerry to stay above this...let the media handle it (which they probably won't) or at least let Daily Show at it!
It does show a bit of concern on the part of the Bush campaign, though. I don't think it is immoral but it smacks of insincerity (I am here for Nader...but not really, it is for Bush). But the concern must be that Bush, who often publicly says "I believe the majority of Americans think..." is more likely thinking "I believe almost half of all Americans think..." If I were in the Kerry camp, I would be enthused by this sort of behavior.
quote:If I were in the Kerry camp, I would be enthused by this sort of behavior.
I doubt that's the case, since the simple reality is that the presence of Nader on the ballot increases Bush's chance of a win and decreases Kerry's chances.
Nevertheless, what I'd like to see is a response that involves creative thinking - especially organizing grassroots activity - instead of complaints about the ethics of it that border on whining.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nevertheless, what I'd like to see is a response that involves creative thinking - especially organizing grassroots activity
What is sad is the Democrats had this...but then said "no" to Dean. But to look for creative thinking in a political campaign is to look for an chicken in the henhouse after a fox got in. Won't happen, sadly. I think the closest to grassroots will be these 527 groups and the Nader-esque or Kucinich-esque style smarty pants style campaigns but those don't sell votes, sadly. Knee jerk reaction and spewed bile and dirty tricks go farther and cost less.
quote:What is sad is the Democrats had this...but then said "no" to Dean.
fil,
The trouble with the "Deaniacs" is that they weren't nearly as creative and clever as they thought they were.
They did great and new things with the internet and connecting people through the internet.
But they were clueless when it came to the "traditional" methods of grassroots organizing. Their own failure to do necessary footwork in Iowa to turn out supporters in the caucus was a big factor in Dean's less than spectacular showing there. They were unprepared for the effectiveness of the organizing done by Kerry and Edwards.
(I should admit that I was never a fan of Dean's. His pride in "shooting from the hip" and disdain for criticism were a little too close to the operating style of the current holder of oval office for my tastes.)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I'm disappointed in our primary process. I think every state should vote on the same day so we don't have Iowa picking the nominee for either party.
Not that I think Dean would have been any better than Kerry. Both of the are pretty loony-left, but "I have a scream" Dean is more frightening.
I don't subscribe to the thought that you want the other party to nominate their wackiest member. Yes, it may hurt their chances of winning, but candidates gain credibility simply by being "the other choice." That is, if you dislike Bush, you don't care who is running against him. Heck, the democrats could put up Osama Bin Laden and he'd get a large hunk of votes simply because he isn't Bush. Kerry isn't near as obviously evil as OBL. He hasn't burned villiages and murdered civilians in 30 years. So, I have to agree with former president Clinton, He has about a 50% chance of winning.
I don't know who I would have rather the Dems nominate this year. My conservitive friends were rooting for Dean, but I'm glad it wasn't him. Anyone nominated for either of the major parties has a good chance to win.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
