Why Nader was wrong (a most important difference between D & R)

[ProfessorPlum]

There are many important differences which would have manifested themeselves between resident Bush's reign and the theoretical term of President-in-exile Gore.

But many people are fooled by Nader's "They are all the same" style.

For those of you who are, or who know people who buy into Nader's rhetoric, here is the single most important reason to still vote for Democrats anyway, even if you think they will run with the same guiding principles (they won't, but let's pretend for the sake of argument that they will):

The media still remembers to sort of act as watchdogs for Democrats. They will report on Democratic corruption (and how!). They will point out Democratic conflicts of interest. They will report on Democratic quid pro quo.

So, at the very least, if you are in favor of good government, watched over by the media, vote for Democrats. For Democrats, the fog lifts from the media's eyes and they can spot corruption again! With Republicans, they just go back to their torpor and forget the meaning of the word.

[boxster]

1. Of course there's a difference!

I find it difficult to believe that ANYONE, Nader included, could believe that Gore/Bush were interchangeable.

Gore wouldn't have demanded ridiculous tax cuts for the rich. Gore wouldn't have removed environmental safeguards from corporations in multiple industries. Gore wouldn't have launched a preemptive, stupid war in Iraq. Can you imagine the reaction if Gore had pulled the flight-suit stunt?

Even ignoring Gore's populist swing, "moderate" does not equal "right-wing wacko".

I find it equally disconcerting that a number of Dean supporters (and others, to be fair) are saying that Clark is just going to continue Bush's policies or that he could be worse than Bush. Claiming that any of our nine candidates would be worse than Bush is to state a practical impossibility.

You're right about the media, but as I'm sure you'd agree, the fundamental differences between the parties are obvious, even though people tend to ignore them to pursue their own agendas.

[adriennel]

2. Thanks, Professor!

You make some good points and I always enjoy a Nader thread that doesn't get too nasty.

I am not a Nader supporter, but I am in favor of something other than the 2 party system we currently operate under. I would love to see a viable third party (or more!)

the phrase "Repugs and Dems are the same" was oft repeated in the 2000 election and really bugged me. Allow me to indulge in the benefit of doubt: Nader was interested in obtaining that 5% for party funding. "Support a third party?" Not so inspiring to most Americans. "Repug & Dems are all the same"--a more fiery, motivating sound bite. Nader picked a very bad time to promote this message.

In the meantime, I will remain a Dem voter without a party.

[Sir_Shrek]

3. Ehh....

I think most people would respond with "So I should vote for the party that gets beaten down in the press? It shouldn't matter if they fit my views or not?"

I think belieiving that a third party will maintain its ideological integrity and still become successful on a national stage is foolish. The exception to this would be if a third party became established in local and Congressional politics before going for the Oval Office, but that could admittedly take a generation. But for a third party to really be successful, it's going to have to siphon voters form the Dem and Rep parties alike. I just don't see anything like that happening.

[FDRrocks]

4. Why was he wrong?

I don't contend that there aren't any difference... but your post didn't seem to state anything othan than the media is pro-corporation. And for my .02 I am very disenchanted with the idea that Democrats themselves practice "Good" government. Maybe tolerable. They have sure helped Bush's little scams along.

[jpgray]

5. Hey Plum! Haven't seen you around for a while

Welcome back.

:toast:

In a recent CNN appearance, Nader has admitted that there are differences, and said what I always wanted him to say: "First we need to dump Bush, so I have time to make a difference" (paraphrasing). If he's truly turned away from heightening the contradictions, then he is an invaluable ally. I don't expect him to lay off of a corporate Dem entirely, but if he recognizes Bush as the main enemy for this election at least, he's welcome to do whatever he wants if it was up to me.

[Terwilliger]

6. I'm sorry, what planet do you live on?

For Democrats, the fog lifts from the media's eyes and they can spot corruption again! With Republicans, they just go back to their torpor and forget the meaning of the word.

Aren't you forgetting Bill Clinton? The media didn't give a shit about corruption back then.