inignoct wrote:
] Upset that the maverick run of Republican Presidential
] candidate (and incumbent President) George W. Bush could lead
] to a victory by John Kerry, Ralph Nader called upon Bush to
] cease splitting the anti-Kerry vote and drop out of the
] race.
]
] I like Nader.
]
] [ Me too. Just not enough to vote for him again. Not more
] than I dislike Bush. I'm not naive enough anymore to believe
] that principle is the only thing i should use to guide my
] choices. Voting for the best (most like me in principle), and
] ending up with the worst (Bush) is *not* better than voting
] for second best and getting it. No one will ever successfully
] use the "The lesser of two evil's is still evil," argument on
] me again -- it may be true, but it's a poor way to choose a
] president. "Less evil" wins over "Not evil but not really a
] competitor" from now on.
]
] Now that I've ranted, i'm going with that story being a joke,
] what with the dateline, and the fact that the links within it
] are to counterstrike servers and CBS Sportsline and so on.
] What's scary is that it actually sounds like something Nader
] would say. -k]

Lesser of two evils wins because most people vote with the idea that they're preventing someone from gaining office. Rather than voting for who they'd want, they vote out who they don't want because the choice is usually grim. That's no way to run even a mockery of democracy. More interests aren't represented because people aren't demanding it. The "for shit" leadership we've had lately is directly a result of people not taking initiative for something better. You can slow down something worse, but you're still sliding down a hill. So, I would suppose, that if you didn't vote for who you WANT elected, it doesn't give you much room for complaint.

terratogen wrote:
] Lesser of two evils wins because most people vote with the
] idea that they're preventing someone from gaining office.
] Rather than voting for who they'd want, they vote out who they
] don't want because the choice is usually grim. That's no way
] to run even a mockery of democracy. More interests aren't
] represented because people aren't demanding it. The "for
] shit" leadership we've had lately is directly a result of
] people not taking initiative for something better. You can
] slow down something worse, but you're still sliding down a
] hill. So, I would suppose, that if you didn't vote for who
] you WANT elected, it doesn't give you much room for complaint.

[ Yeah, I voted for who i wanted in 2000. It was Nader. I did so because I believe a democracy should have more than 2 competitive parties. I did so because i felt that Nader would represent my interests better than any other candidate. I did so because I honestly wish the world would conform to the idealistic visions I have for it.

But I ended up with Bush. A man who has few of my ideals in mind when he makes his decisions. Decisions to reduce taxes for the exceedingly rich, while giving little back to the lower class who could really use it. Decisions to start a war, without support on the world stage. Decisions to support codifying discrimination against homosexual couples in the US constitution. Decisions to not adequately fund even things he claims to favor : No Child Left Behind, Homeland Security, first responders, military pay.

That was the price of my idealism.

I still have faith that someday the world will be every bit of the place I dream about, but November 2, 2004 isn't that day, no matter how much I want it to be. I'd rather spend the next four years building a foundation for progress than suffering under the hateful administration of a half-wit.

Although, now that I'm thinking about it... maybe four more years of untruth, hate, bigotry, cronyism and fear mongering are exactly what we need to convince the sheep in this country that corporations, doublespeak and neocon "ideals" have no place in the White House.

Maybe I'll cut right to the chase and vote for Bush in November. -k]

inignoct wrote:
] Upset that the maverick run of Republican Presidential
] candidate (and incumbent President) George W. Bush could lead
] to a victory by John Kerry, Ralph Nader called upon Bush to
] cease splitting the anti-Kerry vote and drop out of the
] race.
]
] I like Nader.
]
] [ Me too. Just not enough to vote for him again. Not more
] than I dislike Bush. I'm not naive enough anymore to believe
] that principle is the only thing i should use to guide my
] choices. Voting for the best (most like me in principle), and
] ending up with the worst (Bush) is *not* better than voting
] for second best and getting it. No one will ever successfully
] use the "The lesser of two evil's is still evil," argument on
] me again -- it may be true, but it's a poor way to choose a
] president. "Less evil" wins over "Not evil but not really a
] competitor" from now on.

Well said. Never in a trillion years did I EVER think I'd vote for Al Gore as president. His over-zealous wife Tipper with the whole PMRC censorship thing in the 80's scared the CRAP out of me.

THEN I woke up and realized a man TRULY unfit to be president in every way was gonna give Al a run for his money in November of 2000, and suddenly "President Gore" didn't have such a bad ring to it any more. So I crossed my libertarian party lines "its not a vote for Gore, its a vote AGAINST Bush". I sure do wish I could have convinced some of my hard-headed friends the same thing. And believe me - I tried.

And they, like you, are also sorry for their short-sightedness to see the forest for the trees four years ago.

Live and learn. -LB