Blogger Brian said...
Adam you think Gore would have been as bad as Bush? You think he would have sent us to war in Iraq? You think he would have refused to sign the Kyoto protocols? You think he would have let the oil industry run the EPA? You think he would have pushed tax breaks for the super-rich?
If so, I think your position is ill-supported and naive. Sure democrats and republicans are both creatures of a broken system but they do have policy differences that matter.
I am all for Nader pushing for reform, but not if it will result in a continuation of the neocon regime.
4:13 PM
Blogger MBO said...
Do I think that Gore is Bush? Of course not.
Would Gore have been as "bad" as Bush?
Depends how you define bad.
And this is speculation yes?
As far as all of your claims: well, so you say.
I think it is very possible, even easy, for a well informed Republican to counter every argument put forth by a well informed Democrat as to why Bush has not been so bad for our Country.
Both sides credibility is sadly wanting.
Anyway, that is not a conversation that I feel is terribly constructive.
Why?
Because we are arguing about the wrong things. It's a smoke and mirror show pal. It's like shining the silver on the Titanic.
Do you think it's just Apathy that causes more than 50% of our countrymen NOT to vote?
You freely concede the system is broken and yet what candidates are meaningfully addressing this broken system? I'm sorry, but if your suggesting it's Obama, Clinton, McCain, Bush or Gore perhaps it's you who is sadly being naive.
Fuck, it's easy to figure out what's wrong with America and why none of these well intentioned people are willing to deal with what's wrong.
Just follow the money!
So feel free to parse it down anyway you like. Iraq, The Environment, The Economy. These are all secondary issues to me.
Excuse the metaphor (I like em!) but it seems that we are are all feverishly engaged in discussions concerning which fancy model Carburetor we should put in our car.
You know, that broken, rusted one with no wheels out on the lawn?
So says I.
Respectfully
Adam
5:50 PM
Blogger Brian said...
I don't disagree with the thrust of your metaphor (that the "car" is in a sad state and neither a democrat or a republican is likely to completely fix it in the next 4 years).
The problem with your logic is this: Neither is ralph nader. What do we have to show for for his 2000 candidacy? 8 years of Bush. What's different this time?
The point of my hypotheticals was: Wouldn't we be better off if Gore had been elected and we hadn't gone to war in Iraq, etc.? Do you really think that we wouldn't?
It is just silly to say that iraq, the environment, and the economy are secondary issues. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis.
I will settle for a president who will at least get the old jalopy a tuneup, maybe some new tires and breakpads. Surely that's better than one who will let her fall into still deeper disrepair.
Sure I'd rather trade her in for an Audi, but its just not gonna happen overnight.
10:52 PM
Blogger MBO said...
In the spirt of a good ol political conversation, I'll retort:
I don't buy for one second that Nader's 2000 candidacy cost Gore the election. Their is absolutely zero proof for this. The only facts that have surfaced reveal the documenting of a well orchestrated smear campaign conducted quite openly by the Democrats. And perhaps Gore would have had a better time of it IF HE WON HIS OWN STATE?
Personally I'd feel a tad more comfortable knowing the guy who has been openly fighting big business interests of profit over people was at the head of our country. The same guy who went head to head with GM (who were literally killing people with their Corvair) in the 60's and (amazingly) won, the same guy that is responsible for putting seat belts and airbags in our cars, the same guy who put product labeling on food and medicine, the same guy who made the airlines get in line for their unfair practices to passengers. The same guy who started a honest to goodness movement in the 60's and 70's (Nader's Raiders) that became a tangible warning bell to the "Untouchable" Corporations.
Having said that Im not sure I can answer your hypothetical as conveniently as you may like? I'm no fan of Bush (as this blog clearly documents) but Im also not going to sit here and say Republicans=bad and Democrats=Good.
I still maintain that Bush's biggest blunder is his administrations hubris (certainly fueled by 9-11 and the rolling over of our elected officials. ((hmmm no Democrats in there right?)) , for what he really did was bring the under-the-table dealings of our government proudly to the forefront in the name of a "Patriotic" Meme.
Or do you think the mechanisms like Guantanamo Bay were a Bush creation? If you care I could easily provide a sobering list of human rights and Constitutional violations that occurred under Democratic rule. But it seems safe to assume that you already know?
Im sorry you find my stance "silly". But these issues (Iraq, Environment etc) all stem from the fact that our government is nothing but a consumer fraud. The misuses and disregard for basic human rights and our Constitution have been in full swing and humming along for centuries.
You conveniently invoke the dead of Iraq. Do I even need to mention the dead of South America, the Middle and Far East and Africa who have died under the flag of our "interests". Do you really claim this is a Bush administration "problem"? How about the misuses of power on our own soil thats been going on for years? Let's not go there ok?
So returning to your "Wouldn't' Gore have been better" question: Well I say not really. Superficially yes. But not in a meaningful way.
Personally I'm sick to death of the "lesser of two evils" argument championed by Democrats. All that says, all that REALLY says, is that someone is more comfortable with the horrors of our Goverment remaining under the table and not on the nightly news where we can all see it. Ignorance is bliss. One evil is better than another evil. It's not.
Forgive me, my car metaphor (or was it a simile?) was not strong enough and I think you may have missed my point. Let me refrain:
The Democratic vs Republican argument is like arguing about a which new carburetor we want to put in our car:
You know..the one that we pretend is in our carport?
Thanks!
Adam
Reference:
www.anunreasonableman.com/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People's_History_of_the_United_States
www.economichitman.com/ 8:29 AM
Blogger Shakki said...
"America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable."
-Hunter S. Thompson
10:07 AM
Delete
Blogger Brian said...
I don't mean to say that Nader "cost Gore the election" (the Supreme Court gets that honor) but I think it is at least fair to say that his campaign may have been a factor. And may be again.
I would like to know what he (Nader) did accomplish by running in 2000. It doesn't seem like he accomplished much to me, and I don't see why I should expect him to accomplish much this time around either.
I have great respect for Ralph Nader and what he's done to protect the American people from corporate douchebags. I even voted for him in 1996. And I fully support his (or anybody's) efforts to shine a light on the numerous problems with our political system. I just don't see how running for president will help his cause.
Fairly or not, he will be widely perceived as sabotaging Democratic prospects. I believe that perception will make it very difficult for him to build a broad support base.
As for whether the Iraq war is a "Bush administration problem," emphatically YES. Of course there have been all kinds of atrocities throughout American history but Iraq is one that would not have happened if Bush had not been installed as president. I think it is the most salient example of how the policy differences between Republicans and Democrats do make a difference. I think you trivialize the very real effects the war in Iraq has had on countless human beings when you call it a "secondary issue."
I would rather elect a President that will not lead us into another Iraq, who will spend my tax dollars on social programs instead, and who will pursue sane environmental and social policies. Ralph Nader would do so, sure, but Ralph Nader is never going to be president. That is a fact. I would love to inhabit a universe where he could be but I don't. So I will vote for Obama (or Hillary, if it comes down to it). I will also continue to support groups that lobby for governmental reform, consumer and environmental protection. I just don't see how a vote for Nader will advance any of those causes.
12:10 AM
