Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Tough Choices in Bush Country

By Tom Castleman

Read full article...

Posted 03/16 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. It’s wonderful that you’ve decided to vote for Nader and not Bush, Tom.  However, given the fact that even if Nader were to be elected...historical precedent shows that this country of ours would find a way to continue to deal with the “have nots” in the same manner that they’ve always dealt with them...unfairly...without concern for their welfare...insensitively...brutally...and so on...I ask you, and all the readers voting, to consider what else you’re prepared to do to make this a liveable world.  I think it would help to understand that the problems with our relationships overseas have much less to do with favoring haves and ignoring have nots than they have to do with our creating have nots and supporting (illegally, with great violence, etc.) regimes abroad...who we prop up in total disregard of the masses of people involved; that’s very different than “favoring.” In addition, I submit that those abroad are --contrary to popular talk and writing-- less motivated by religion than they are by other factors...all too real in their daily lives...imposed by us.  Although I enjoyed the writing as writing...with it building suspense of a sort, I must say that if you’re serious, Tom, about having considered a vote for Bush --I’m such a “thick” reader at times-- there’s a lot for you to address prior to Bush or Kerry or Nader getting elected.  The challenge is for everyone to decide what they’re going to do to reverse the momentum of this country...which did NOT begin with Bush...and will not end with Nader being in charge.  I say that on the eve of submitting a highly favorable article on behalf of Nader.  Of course he’s the guy to vote for!!!
    Best, Richard Oxman

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  03/16  at  02:06 AM

  2. Tom,
    I had the opportunity to read your comments regarding your dilemma between voting for George Bush and Ralph Nader.  Your faith in democracy and strong belief that Americans should be given the option to vote for candidates from a broader political spectrum than just the two major parties is refreshing.  But why should you have to make this choice?  Couldn’t you vote your conscience and at the same time vote for a second choice candidate.

    I am dedicated to fair elections where every vote counts and all voters are represented.  Instead of accepting our current voting system, we should work towards establishing full representation as an alternative to winner-take-all elections and instant runoff voting as an alternative to plurality elections and traditional runoff elections.  Like you, I firmly believe that American democracy must permit all who want to participate that opportunity.  Instead of looking for ways to limit the number of people who run for political office, we should work together to develop a voting system that enables full participation, but that guarantees he winner will have the support of a majority of the electorate and eliminating the effect of “spoilers”.  One answer is instant runoff voting.  IRV offers an alternative to citizen frustration with “spoiler” candidiacies such as Ralph Nader and non-majority, unrepresentative winners. 

    IRV simulates a traditional two-round runoff system. When voters go to the polls, instead of casting just a single vote for a single candidate, voters have the option of ranking preferred candidates in order of choice: first choice, second choice, third choice and so on.  If a candidate wins a majority of first choices, that candidate has earned victory with majority support.  If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and a second round of counting occurs. In this round, your ballot counts for your top-ranked candidate still in the race. Rounds of counting continue until there is a majority winner.

    IRV is gathering support in the United States. Backers include Howard Dean, John McCain and editorial writers at several major newspapers. IRV bills are being considered in nearly two dozen state legislatures (up from just one in 1997), and it has been adopted in such diverse places as San Francisco (for its city elections, starting this November) and Utah (where Republicans use it to nominate candidates and elect officers at party conventions).

    For more information on alternative voting systems in general ,please go to http://www.fairvote.org


    Sincerely


    Andrew

    Posted by Andrew from  on  03/16  at  10:29 AM

  3. Dear Tom:

    I agree with you that Ralph Nader is a man of principle.  However, he has no chance to win the election. 

    The only hope this country has not only in terms of security, but economically as well, is to remove George Bush from the White House. 

    This president ‘s “taking the fight to the terrorists” and has not made our country safer.  One just has to see what happened in Spain and look at what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq.  There is no way to take the fight to the terrorists.  You can arrest hundreds and even thousands of them and there will still be hundreds and thousands more waiting to take their place.  They are organized and well funded and even if we find Bin Laden, it will not stop them.  We cannot stop them.  We have spawned a breed of terrorism.  Our only hope is to elect man with high intelligence who can engage with leaders of all countries and who can help repair our reputation in foreign lands.  That man is not Ralph Nader and it is certainly not George Bush.  It is John Kerry.

    I am feeling a bit sickened by your rejection of John Kerry also.  I hope you will reconsider.  Cast a vote that will count - but don’t cast it for George Bush.

    Posted by maria from  on  03/16  at  02:14 PM

  4. Andrew and Maria deserve responses.  Respecting Andrew’s comments, let’s say that in spite of Dean and McCain’s association IRV IS AN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, WONDERFUL IDEA; don’t recall if Steven Hill’s FAIR ELECTIONS was cited, but it’s an excellent source for all matters related to IRV and the electoral process.  Which brings me to Maria’s comments.  Regarding her view, please note that the voting and non-voting public is going to have to do something aside from attach itself to a given candidate.  There is enough evidence --eloquently and amply laid out by Mickey Z and Mark Hand on this site-- to explain why neither Kerry nor Bush nor Nader will suffice...to address the terrorist-related concerns cited by Maria...or other dire issues.  That said, please note that as much as I am for IRV...even with that in place...in the future...we will have to all work feverishly outside of electoral politics to save ourselves and the planet.  Please, let’s stop acting as if the primary focus of our energies should be who is seated in the White House.  Best, Richard Oxman

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  03/16  at  06:45 PM

  5. Right on Tom! I feel the same way. It’s time we all vote for what we think is right not who has the better chance to win. He can make this country better by running and informing us about the things he stands for and where this country is heading. For every vote he takes away from Bush or Kerry I see that as one smarter Amercain and that gives me hope.

    Posted by Kirby Sidlo from  on  03/16  at  08:51 PM

  6. I’ve heard repeatedly that Nader is going to steal votes away from the Democratic nominee this November. Now I’m hearing this writer say if he doesn’t vote for Nader, he’ll vote for Bush. If he votes for Nader, wouldn’t it steal votes away from Bush’s reelection bid? I’m confused about which political party Nader is helping and hurting with his presidential candidacy!

    Posted by Emile Henry from  on  03/17  at  09:36 AM

  7. I voted for Nader in 00 becuase I knew we had to take a stand and show the Dems we couldn’t settle for “Republican-lite”.

    But a 4-year blanck check for the Bush gang should scare anyone who can accept a Nader analysis of the world.

    Your thoughts about why the U.S. is so hated are poignant and the solution is disassembling the mercenary state created in the Vietnam era.

    Our only hope for this is to get Bush out of the White House and make progress on election reform.

    While it’s quite probable Kerry can’t win Texas (as the Bush gang will steal the election if they have to, installing Diebold electronic “voting” machines being one of their top priorities on the trail back home - could that be because the CEO of Diebold is a major GOP, and specifically Bush, backer? See any recent news storied on Diebold equipment security), at least a vote for Kerry will help build consensus that, if we face another 2000 “Supreme Court chooses” de facto coup, we don’t have to just sit quietly by.

    Your courage to face the overwhelming appeals to fear and insecurity the Bush gang launch daily by going to evaluate Nader for yourself is courageous. Voting for the only viable alternative would continue that.

    Sincerely,

    Charlie Mote

    Posted by Charlie Mote from  on  03/17  at  10:40 PM

  8. Richard (and Mark and Mickey) are right - presidential voting is only a small piece of what needs to be done.  Democracy is not only voting on election day, and the price of freedom, as what should by now be cliche, is eternal vigilance. 

    I have to say I was surprised to hear Tom say he appreciated Bush’s stance on terrorism and that it made him want to sing hallelujahs; and second Emily’s response to that.  Rhetorically Bush’s stance on terrorism might be attractive, although I am disgusted by his use of the first person singular in opposing it, as if he and his Superman’s cape are terrorism’s match.  But practically his policy is worst than bankrupt.  Moreover, on closer examination, his rhetoric on fighting terrorism is merely a cloak for the same old rapacious imperial adventures: Halliburton et al. profiteering in Iraq, wholesale foreign privatization of Iraq’s resources, and the greedy eye cast at the oil and other resources of the Caspian Basin to see that.  Although I do disagree with Emily’s assertion that Kerry is the man for the hour.  I don’t see Kerry as being even as good as Clinton, with whom there was initially a sense of idealism and hope.  Kerry impresses me as little more than a patrician and DLC Democrat.  Remember Clinton presided over the most murderous part of the sanctions regime in Iraq, far blookier than his predecessor, and also policies like that Plan Colombia the status quo on the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, and that’s only some of what we know.  Are we to understand this was an improvement of either of the Bushes?  That Kerry would be an improvement over Clinton?  I would agree Kerry would be less wful than Bush.  So would my dog.

    As to Nader taking Democratic or Republican votes away.  I don’t have any hard numbers and have not looked very far into it.  I do know that when Nader announced on Meet The Press, he said that he received more Republican than Democrat votes in Florida.  I think there’s a significant segment of the Republican elite dissatisfied with Bush.  Especially after his bungling of the last four years.

    Press Action rules!

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  03/18  at  06:29 PM
    9. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Appeasement: We Follow Orders, Why Don't You?

    Previous entry: ‘Depraved Indifference’

    [ads]

    Support Press Action