The Daily Kos, which ought to be called the blog of the DNC, threw a hissy fit at the entrance of Nader into the 2008 presidential race accusing him of among other things of entering a race he couldn't win (as if that is a constitutional requirement) and being unethical because they perceive him as a threat to Democrats because he siphons votes away from the Democratic candidate. It's pretty obvious to me that if the Democratic candidate can lose votes to Nader or anyone else for that matter on the issues, then there is a problem with the Democratic candidate, Democratic party or both. If you really want a scary scenario for Democrats AND Republicans put a Kucinch-Paul ticket on the November Ballot and see what happens. Anyway, in response to the histerics over at KOS, we find an intelligent article over at Alternet:
What's more, as Ralph said during his appearance on Meet the Press, Democrats are perfectly capable of analyzing a story with multiple variables, but when it comes to election 2000, they focus on just one. Even if Gore hadn't won the most votes in Florida -- according to any of seven standards the courts might have used -- even if we look at just the recounted counties that gave Bush that slim 500-vote lead, there were a dozen other factors that would have tipped the scales. Katherine Harris purged 50,000 (mostly black) eligible voters. Gore decided not to have Bubba Clinton campaign on his behalf, despite Clinton's 65 percent approval rating (which was the highest for a departing president since World War II). Pat Buchanan won little old gray-haired Jewish ladies' votes thanks to the infamous "butterfly ballot." I could go on -- the point is that looking at all of those factors and then blaming a citizen for exercising his right to run for elected office is both intellectually weak and absurd in principle.
Many Democrats, in their misplaced pique, also condemn Nader and his supporters in a profoundly bone-headed way -- they suggest, or at least imply, that it was somehow the duty of progressive-minded people to vote for the Democratic ticket because of the perfidy of the alternative...
- but the idea that people "owe" their vote to a candidate, even one who fails to fully represent their interests, is not only offensive, it's also counter-productive. The reason is simple: It's anathema to liberal ideology to walk in lock-step with a party.
Now Josh may not vote for Nader, but at least he doesn't insult the process or the man in the process of disagreeing with him.
Technorati Tags: 2008 US Elections
No comments:
Post a Comment