posted on October 12, 2000 09:12:43 PM new
...plus 4,000 other noisy people.
'Twas an amazing rally! It is hard to explain, but the man is so real, and so NOT polished, that it is impossible to not get a charge from hearing him speak. The issues are real to him, and you can feel that. He doesn't pander or compromise.
I urge anyone, if you have a chance to see him in person, even if your politics differ from his, to go hear him speak. He is the embodiment of Democracy...a devoted citizen who feels a responsibilty to all of us. No hidden agendas or power trips, just a commitment to renewed system which works for everyone, and not just a few.
posted on October 12, 2000 10:50:44 PM new
You'll get over it. I felt that way about Hubert Humphrey when I went to a seminar at SF State when he spoke in (was it?) 1974.
Still do feel like that about Jerry Brown, who's Mayorial office is in an old warehouse/artist enclave in Oakland, CA.
posted on October 12, 2000 10:58:16 PM new
Uh, this is a true story.
Ralph Nader was a speaker at a national SPJ conference some years back. The national SPJ FOIA person wanted to interview Nader after his address. He agreed to an interview if it could be conducted during a cab drive back to the airport. Apparently, he had another flight to catch.
After the 20 minute ride and once he had reached his destination, Nader got out of the cab and left without paying his cab fare. He stiffed the reporter with the bill.
Just another one of those things that makes you go, hmmmmm.
posted on October 13, 2000 08:21:25 AM newJulesy "I keep forgetting how jaded everyone is about this subject."
Jaded? Not everyone.
I'm voting for him. I agree, not the 'typical' politician, and that's so refreshing. Glad you were able to see/hear him in person. I watched Phil Donohue interviewing him recently, and I have such respect for the man..his values...his simplistic lifestyle, etc. While he doesn't stand a chance in h*** of being elected, I, at least, find comfort in the fact that there are people out there like him.
posted on October 13, 2000 09:29:44 AM new
I'd vote Nader if i wasn't voting for Harry Browne. In this election year, i'd support any vote against the two party system. . . the only spooky thing is the Supreme Court apointments.
If it gets down to the wire and it looks too bad for Gore, i'll force myself to vote for him . . . but i don't want to.
posted on October 13, 2000 10:27:01 AM new
Amazingly, I've had my "Ralph Nader for President" yard sign up for about a month now, and it's still there, unmolested. I live in a very "Republican" neighborhood, and last Presidential election, the odd Clinton/Gore sign in the neighborhood never lasted more than a few days, before being ripped and tossed, mutilated, or just disappeared. I don't know if it's because "they" don't feel threatened by Nader or what. A friend of mine, who is a staunch Democrat keeps telling me that a vote for Nader is a vote for Dubya, but I don't care. I made up my mind months ago. It's too bad that the news media won't see fit to include Nader as a viable candidate. If more people had access to his message, I think he would really give Gore and Bush a run for the money. Instead he's being treated like a "fringe" candidate along the lines of Buchanan (EGADS!).
My vote is with Nader this November and to hell with the rest of them. Sometimes you just have to throw party affiliation out and vote with your conscience.
posted on October 13, 2000 10:53:15 AM new
Hi there KatyD - "I don't know if it's because "they" don't feel threatened by Nader or what."
No they're not feeling threatened, they know he doesn't have the financial backing the two parties have. But then again, he doesn't owe as many favors either. Nader didn't/hasn't 'sold his soul' to big business or special interests either though. That seems to be what it takes now-a-days to get the financial backing....such a shame.
If only more of the people who are still undecided, or the people that don't like either choice in the two parties would stand up and shout "Enough" (by their vote), he would stand a chance.
Picking from the lesser of two evils is not something that I could bring myself to do.
posted on October 13, 2000 11:32:31 AM new
Jaded? Can you blame me? Can you blame anyone when in this great wide land of ours all we can churn out as presidential candidates are the two imbeciles Bush and Gore? I don't know about anyone else, but the idea of either of them as president scares the hell out of me. Even scarier, there's no stopping it.
As for candidates like Nader and idealism and hope for the future, the last line of Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises comes to mind:
posted on October 13, 2000 12:03:39 PM new
Nope, I can't blame you for being jaded, Spaz. It is a sad state of affairs.
What scares me more than anything though, is that we, the people, allow this. We are getting exactly what we have demanded, which is a big zero. Election after election, people vote for the "lesser of two evils," and both parties *know* this, so they know they can get away with offering us pathetic choices, like Gore and Bush.
That is what I find so frustrating; people could affect change in this country if they weren't so damn scared of breaking party ranks. To me, that isn't even idealism speaking...it is just common sense.
posted on October 13, 2000 12:19:11 PM newI don't know if it's because "they" don't feel threatened by Nader or what.
KatyD --
I think it's because they (Republicans) know that a good portion of Nader's votes are going to come from abandoned and/or disgruntled Democrats. Nader's presence is hurting Gore, as it rightfully should.
posted on October 13, 2000 12:43:56 PM new
I felt a little weird mentioning that I'd vote for Gore if worse came to worse - especially because, as a Minnesotan, I participated ( and voted for the winner) in one of the strangest election upsets in recent memory - the Jesse Ventura election.
The major difference is that there was a huge influx of young (new) voters whose votes were not accounted for by polling data prior to the election... they just waltzed in at the last moment and, with a share of us 'old folks' stole the election from the unacceptable choices offered by the 2 parties.
At the same time, a governor can't really "wreck" your state in 4 years... a president can do a lot of damage. Whether it turns out that Jesse is a good governor or not, the message to the parties was good - give us better candidates.
Now if we could only get that message out on a national level.
edited for --- Hey y'all, Jules, it's good to 'see' you too!
[ edited by thrinworks on Oct 13, 2000 12:45 PM ]
posted on October 13, 2000 01:20:17 PM newLost track of the fact that the majority likes it this way.
I don't know if this is neccessarily so. I think the time is about right, for a viable 3rd party (or more). Don't forget about Perot and what he achieved 8 years ago. (EGAD! and look where his party is today)
If you've been raised eating cheese sandwiches all your life, sure, some people aren't going to eat anything else EVER! But a great many people are going to revolt and say "I hate cheese sandwiches and I'm not gonna eat em anymore!". I'm sick of cheese sandwiches.
posted on October 13, 2000 01:26:03 PM new
Julesy, yeah, I'm thinking you're right in that Bush's people are counting on Nader's vote, and it ticks me off. But what can I do? I certainly don't want to help Bush, but I just don't have it in me to vote for Gore.
Hi LindaK, I agree, I'm not going to pick the lesser of two evils.
An aside here....has anyone noticed that Al Gore's head looks too small for his body? Has he been working out or what? Maybe it's his tailor padding the shoulders of his suits. I don't know...he just looks like a "pinhead" to me. Not that that is the reason I'm not voting for him.
KatyD
mean't small not big
[ edited by KatyD on Oct 13, 2000 01:27 PM ]
posted on October 13, 2000 01:59:21 PM new
My husband and I will be voting for Nader too. We've been registered as Independents for almost 30 years and have voted Republican in only two local elections. Our state will almost certainly go for Bush, but we've got to start supporting third and fourth party candidates if we want more choice. Buchanan(sp?) will hopefully draw some voters away from Bush.
posted on October 13, 2000 07:24:16 PM new
Ralph Nader is to the Republican candidate what Ross Perot was to the Democratic candidate 8 years ago, so by all means if you find that you cannot vote for G.W. Bush then vote for Ralph Nader.
posted on October 13, 2000 08:01:43 PM new
What I am saying krs is that a vote for Nader is a vote that is not cast for Algore, so yes in a round about way I guess your assumtion is right about what I am saying.
It seems to me that of the 2 main candidates, Republican and Democrat, that of the people that lean towards a Democrat vote but for whatever reason which is their own they find that they just cannot vote for their Democrat candidate they seem to lean towards voting for Nader instead. As if they are making a statement that neither candidate is worthy of their vote.
posted on October 13, 2000 08:08:14 PM newYellowstone --
Have you considered that many people voting for Nader probably wouldn't have voted at all...for either candidate? That is how disaffected people are. Gore can't lose votes he never had.
An excellent article which eloquently explains why a vote for Nader is *just* a vote for Nader:
posted on October 13, 2000 08:14:28 PM new
And so you advocate depriving the unsatisfactory democratic candidate of a vote that might tip the balance toward the even less satisfactory republican candidate?
Why vote at all? A vote for Nader is a wasted one entirely, and if you vote it would be better to vote for your perception of the lesser of two evils in order to prevent the election of the greater of those evils.
