| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"The Dork" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2004 08:13:50 PM |
| Object: |
I Wasn't Going to Vote for Nader ... Until They Told Me I Couldn't |
If Bush Wins, Blame Me
By DAVID VEST
Originally published October 20th, 2004 at www.counterpunch.org
In Oregon, we all vote by mail, and I have just cast my ballot in the
November 2 election. At least, I think I voted. I'm not sure, because
the candidate I wanted for president wasn't on the ballot.
There was a space for write-ins, a dotted line. Shouldn't there be two
lines? Am I allowed to vote for president but not for vice-president?
Will my vote count if I guess wrong?
There appeared to be many ways to do this write-in vote incorrectly,
so that my ballot can be declared invalid. That's what I am expecting.
It would match the way my candidate has been treated in Oregon and in
many other states.
To be completely honest, I probably wasn't going to vote for Ralph
Nader until they told me I couldn't. I didn't vote for him in 2000. (I
wish I had, but that's another story.) But when I found out they
weren't even going to give me the choice, it rubbed me the wrong way.
When I looked at the ballot and Nader's name wasn't even there, that's
when he finally became my candidate.
I thought it was un-American. Not only that, it proved Ralph's point
about how corrupt our two-party system is.
A lot of things have been proving his point lately. Like the fact that
most of what he warned about in 2000 has come true. I went to his web
site and watched his commercials. You have to watch them online; he
doesn't have enough money to put them on TV. They're very basic, he
just looks into the camera and tells the truth. I found them very
powerful. If they showed them every 30 minutes on TV, or as often as
they show Bush and Kerry ads, I'm not sure Ralph would finish third.
I hate the Bush ads that make Kerry seem unpatriotic for even daring
to oppose the incumbent. Bush and Cheney have consistently suggested
that for Kerry to point out the obvious, that Iraq is a mess, somehow
"hurts the troops." Even worse, he is "helping the terrorists," who
are doing everything in their power to help Kerry win. A vote for
Kerry is a vote for bin Laden, they imply. Might as well put Saddam in
the White House!
I thought these were the vilest political arguments uttered in my
lifetime, and that no one could go any lower or treat the American
electorate with any greater contempt, until I looked at the thrust of
Kerry's argument against Nader. It is exactly the same, only more
contemptible.
Kerry has done to Nader precisely what Bush tried to do to Kerry,
suggesting that it is somehow unpatriotic of Ralph that he would even
consider running for president when Kerry is running. He is "helping
the Republicans," who are doing everything in their power to help
Ralph run. He is on an "ego trip," he is "damaging his legacy," and he
perversely fails to see that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
The character attacks on Nader launched by the Kerry camp have been,
if anything, even harsher than the Bush campaign's attacks on Kerry.
It's almost as though Kerry sees Nader, not Bush, as the more
dangerous opponent. You'd think Karl Rove was running this part of
Kerry's operation, considering how dirty (and how effective) it has
been. I can imagine what kind of "documentaries" Kerry's corporate
backers would be producing if Nader were up in the polls.
These people are good at what they do. Their anti-Nader "talking
points" have successfully permeated political discourse, and not just
on TV. I hear them coming out of the mouths of good people, folks who
passionately love their country and who seem to have no idea they are
helping to slander a good man who believes himself to be working on
their behalf.
It's not necessarily intentional. It's just that once they declared
themselves pro-Kerry, they found themselves echoing the Kerry line. A
year and a half ago, they were marching against the war. Now they
support a man who voted for it and vows to continue the killing, only
he'll do it "better." What happened to these people?
They have almost managed to convince me that it will be not only Ralph
Nader's fault but mine as well if Bush wins. For all I know, they may
be right.
Since it's all my fault, feel free to vote for Nader if you want to,
the damage is already done.
"Feel free" -- what a curious phrase to use in an election. Do you
"feel free" to vote your conscience, or do you feel pressured to vote
against your own interests to keep fear of Bush, or the terrorists, at
bay?
Or do you look at your ballot, as I did, and see that they have no
intention of letting you vote your conscience.
He can be reached at: davidvest@springmail.com.
Visit his website at www.rebelangel.com
.
|
|
| User: "Doorman" |
|
| Title: The vile spewers of mindless blather thread |
26 Oct 2004 07:37:02 AM |
|
|
If you are a fellow American patriot and lover of the First Amendment, then
by these presents greetings. It is good that you seek rational and
democratic discussion of the great and urgent issues facing our nation.
Unfortunately, I think you've come to the wrong place. See the bottom of
this post for additional evidence.
Especially if you remember the old days of thoughtful discussion in the
newsgroups, this triumph of noise over signal may sadden you. Hyde Park of
the world and cheap advertising are all that remain.
However, there are many alternatives. For example, there are many more
"refined" forums on the Web where polite discussions can be found. Even
better if you can build bridges to real people in the physical world. For
example, you could treat a rational RINO to a movie--like Fahrenheit 9/11.
Lots of good books still being published. (Michael Moore has two new ones.)
You could write a letter for your local paper--you'll reach more "normal"
people and probably have more impact than here. Or you could donate to the
political campaigns--I confess I've already made eight donations. Just
remember that big money is harming democracy, that BushCo has more money
than anyone, and that if money alone decides elections then the American
republic is already dead.
Last, but MOST important: VOTE! Your nation needs you NOW!
On the other hand, if you are a Bushevik troll, then in the immortal
floor-of-the-Senate words of the unloved ***** Cheney: "Go f*ck yourself.
When selecting "featured" posts for this mindless blather thread, the
following factors are considered:
1. Ad hominem evasion of real issues.
2. Stone-headed fanaticism.
3. Generalized hate speech, such as racism.
4. Spinning diversion or trivialization of issues.
5. Blatant lies or hypocrisy.
6. Overt trolling, such as extensive cross-posting.
7. Incomprehensible writing.
8. Vicious negative emotionalism, especially amusing personal attacks.
[For the purposes of this thread, the freshest original parts are usually
sufficient, but use the last entry on the References: header line if you
want to see the full context.]
The Dork <just.a.dork@gmail.com> wrote:
If Bush Wins, Blame Me
By DAVID VEST
Originally published October 20th, 2004
<cut-and-paste tripe snip>
[Probably another contribution from the #1 Bushevik troll, but with yet
*another* pseudonym. Just sampling one from another batch of spewage.]
--
We don't know if 9/11 could have been stopped--but we do know Dubya
failed to stop it. That's the FACT.
You want steady leadership for disastrous change?
Attack, lie, spin. Dubya's REAL trifecta.
Trolls fed to "The vile spewers of mindless blather thread".
('Doorman' is a role-based pen name of Shannon Jacobs, copyright
2004.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
