A member wrote (sorry I got confused with all the postings):
> If the Anybody But Bush crowd keep attacking Nader and Nader supporters, as a number of LBO-talk subscribers have, it not only makes it difficult to build a movement to resist whoever gets elected
for president in November by discouraging any challenges to and criticisms of the Democrats, de-politicizing actual and potential activists, and leading more people to demobilize post-election than otherwise -- it may even make it possible for Bush to get reelected despite the objective conditions (economic troubles at home and
Iraqis' resistance abroad) that strongly work against the incumbent, by allowing Kerry to run to the right of Bush and thereby depressing the voter turnout.
With respect, I must disagree. Because I vote for you does not mean that I forfeit my right to criticize you. My husband and I love each other and hope to be married, but that doesn't mean we forgo criticizing one another when we think something is wrong.
When a person votes, they are voting for something and against something simultaneously. No candidate is anybody's perfect choice. Personally, I look for someone close to my values whom I think I could work with and who is amenable to change. There is also sometimes an element of preventing a particular candidate from winning due to unfitness.
As for this election here are my personal views. I fully admit I am a novie at political handicapping:
Kerry: mediocre at best, but probably can be worked with. Seems that his administration could be amenable to outside input/criticism.
Bush: danger, Will Robinson, danger!!! Especially for people of colour, women and queers. Four years ago one could conceivably say "How bad can he be." Four years of history have shown just how bad bad can be.
Nader: a man without a party or a clue it seems. I will admit that his homophobia of four years ago turned me off, and acknowledge that he has at least learned to say the politic thing about queers when prodded. But overall, I am unimpressed.
For instance, the issue of his candidacy helping elect Bush. Clearly, his running was one factor among many that played a part. Yet, he never stands up, says "Yes, my candidacy did play a part in that result," and then move on. He seems to be in a denial of basic facts (as he was 4 years ago about queers). For me he compounds this problem by running without a party. So much energy/person power/money will have to be spent to get him on ballots that could be better used to get his message out. Again, where is Nader's sense of reality?
I think building third parties is a good thing (though as I posted a few days ago, I like the fusion route better). But I do not see supporting Nader as building a third party when he is runing without one LOL.
Finally, activists only demobilize if they vote persons instead of goals. Electing Kerry is a goal -- it removes Bush and puts in place someone who then has to be worked on relentlessly for four years. Even if Nader won, he would also have to be worked on relentlessly for four years.
Carrol wrote:
> Nader is not a Democrat. He is not a Republican.
> Therefore Nader is the candidate to support.
> Comments on Nader (other than these two) are simply irrelevant.
Here I must also disagree. Just as it is not enough to vote for Kerry simply because he is not Bush, Nader must also be something. To me, it is that "being something" where he has failed or proven repugnant.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister