Why I've gone back to the Dems (for now)
Let me say right off the bat that I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. He was the first non-Democratic presidential candidate for whom I ever voted. And I would do it again.
Why did I vote for Nader?
First, I believe that Nader would make a great president. The Washington establishment would do its best to politically cripple a President Nader, as a President Nader would actually do his job, namely, to work for the American people and not for his rich buddies and for the megacorporations that donated to his presidential campaign. But that's not Nader's fault and you can't hold it against him.
Secondly, I knew that in California (I live in Sacramento) a vote for Nader would not have been a vote for George W. Bush. Within days before the 2000 election, the polls showed Al Gore beating Bush II in California by more than 10 percentage points. (Gore did indeed win California's 54 electoral votes when he beat Bush by 12 percentage points in California.) Because the electoral college is winner-takes-all and because Gore was polling so far ahead of Bush, I knew that Gore would win California's electoral votes no matter whom I voted for.
Lastly, I voted for Nader to send the Democratic Party a message: Get your shit together; you have veered too far right. (The Democratic Party never got the message.)
All of that political calculation aside, Nader had the constitutional right to run for president in 2000, a fact that many, even many of those on the left, seem to have forgotten -- or to ignore. Salon.com writer Charles Taylor's idiotic piece "An Open Letter to Ralph Nader Voters" is typical of the Green Party-bashing by the Democrats, who, with the exception of a few Democrats who are too far left to be elected president in 2004 (the Rev. Al Sharpton, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich), still don't get it that if they want to get the Greens back they need to give them a reason to come back -- not to repeatedly tell the Greens, as Taylor did, that because they voted for Nader they are responsible for all of the nation's woes, from the shitty economy to the Bush regime's immoral, illegal, unprovoked and imperialistic attack upon Iraq.
Taylor went off the deep end when he wrote to Nader voters: "...a unique chance exists right now for you to show your true colors, to prove that you are entirely aware of the consequences of your actions and are willing to face them: Volunteer for the invasion of Iraq.... Now's the chance for you overwhelmingly white, middle-class, college-educated Nader voters to show that you really do care and aren't just willing to let someone else do the dying for you. You put Bush in the White House, so why not sign up for his invasion...?"
I have a much better idea: All of those spineless fucking congressional Democrats -- including 2004 Democratic presidential nominee frontrunner Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman -- who subverted the U.S. Constitution when they signed over to Emperor Bush II Congress' power to declare war should have gone to Iraq. And their supporters, too, like Taylor.
Why do Democrats like Taylor blast the Green Party and let the congressional Democrats off the hook? Where have the congressional Democrats been since late 2000? While Team Bush -- which included Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Republican Florida Secretary of State and close Bush chum Katherine Harris, a gaggle of Republican lawyers, and, of course, the five members of the U.S. Supreme Court whom were appointed by Republican presidents -- fought tooth and nail for a White House their candidate did not win, Team Gore practically gave the White House away.
That wussiness has pervaded the Democratic Party ever since. Except for blocking the Bush regime's nominations of two right-wing wackos to federal appeals courts, the congressional Democrats have pretty much rubber-stamped everything that Bush II has demanded, including his war on Iraq.
Bashing the Greens apparently makes the Democrats feel better about themselves, but that won't help the Democractic Party. Only when the Democrats' spines recalcify -- when they learn the meaning of the term "opposition party" -- will they start winning elections again.
So no, the Democrats haven't given me a good reason to go back to them for good.
My recent decision to switch my voter registration from the Green Party back to the Democratic Party is a strategic one: I want to have some say in who the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate will be, and in California you must be a member of a party to vote in its primary.
If the Democrats nominate someone decent, I will vote for him or her. So far -- it's very early -- I can see myself voting for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry or Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt (the other candidates I don't think have much of a chance of winning the nomination). So far, Kerry appears to be the strongest candidate. The Bush regime will use the 9-11/terrorism/fear/war angle to try to get Bush reinstalled, and I can't see Bush attacking Kerry during a debate as being a wussy dove when Kerry actually fought in Vietnam while Gee Dubya's family connections got his precious rich ass into the Texas Air National Guard.
Unfortunately, so far Lieberman is the Democratic frontrunner; a recent national poll showed that 29 percent of Democrats and those who lean Democratic prefer Lieberman, 19 percent of them prefer Gephardt and 14 percent prefer Kerry.
If the Democrats nominate Republican wannabe Lieberman, the Bush regime's biggest Democratic supporter of its war on Iraq, I will not vote for him and I most likely will switch my party registration back to the Green Party. If the Democrats nominate Lieberman, God forbid, it will send a strong message to me that the Democratic Party is only continuing to become more difficult to distinguish from the Republican Party (even as it continues to deny that this is the case).
These two excerpts from the New York Times' coverage of the Democratic presidential hopefuls' first debate on May 3 exemplify classic Lieberman:
A proposal by [Gephardt] to abolish President Bush's tax cuts and use the money to provide subsidies to business to cover health care insurance was repeatedly attacked by his opponents, in a sign of concern that Mr. Gephardt might have taken the lead on what could be a central issue in the primary.
...[Lieberman] called Mr. Gephardt's proposal a "big-spending Democratic idea of the past," suggesting that it could allow Republicans once again to portray Democrats as a party of big government....
Mr. Lieberman criticized both [Dean] for opposing the war and Mr. Kerry for offering what he described as ambivalent support for it, saying that that could undercut the party next year.
"No Democrat will be elected president in 2004 who is not strong on defense, and this war was a test of that," he said. Mr. Lieberman said the position of those two candidates "will not give the people confidence about our party's willingness to make the tough decisions to protect their security."
Why should voters elect a pro-war, anti-healthcare Democrat when they already have a pro-war, anti-healthcare Republican occupying the Oval Office? What real difference is Lieberman offering voters? (Really, see liebermansucks.com.)
I doubt that Nader will run again; if he does, I suspect that, because he and his supporters have been wrongly and unfairly accused of having caused the nation's ills under the Bush regime, he will receive only a fraction of the votes he did in 2000. But if Nader runs in 2004 and my Democratic choice is Lieberman, Nader will get my vote again.
Hopefully, Lieberman is the frontrunner right now only because of the name recognition from being half of the Gore-Lieberman ticket, and the Democrats will wise up and realize that if they nominate Lieberman, Bush II surely will get a second term. If the Democrats get it right and nominate Kerry or another acceptable candidate, then they will get my vote.
I have not abandoned the ideals of the Green Party. When I first read the Green Party's platform in 1999 or 2000, I realized that it was the first time that I'd completely agreed with any political party's manifesto. I would love to see the idealistic world that the Green Party envisions.
But at some point, political practicality must override political idealism.We have reached that point.
Whether I like it or not (and I don't), the only party that can defeat Bush II in 2004 is the Democratic Party. It is important that the Green Party continue its party building; but you build from the ground up, not from the top down. A third party should focus on those smaller elections it can win and then work its way up.
More important than futilely trying to build the Green Party from the top down is making sure that in 2004 George W. Bush loses to his Democratic opponent by such a large margin that even Team Bush cannot reinstall him in the White House. Preventing a second Bush II term is the most important concern, and I'm sure that thousands of others who voted for Nader in 2000 agree with me.
So, Democrats, get it right and nominate the right candidate.
4:32:38 PM 
|
