Since roughly about the time of The Persian Gulf War, I have been very cynical about my government--in particular about the way we elect our officials. While I have voted every year since registering, I've never felt good about it. I have never wanted to campaign or get involved with promoting a candidate or joining a political party. This is not from apathy: I’ve figured out that most politicians--while not necessarily out-and-out crooks--are people whose personal best interests come far above those of their constituents. The only solace for me is that the system has always worked this way, is designed to work this way, and while it can be very immoral, unfair and deadly (especially if you’re live in Iraq or Belgrade), it’s among the best systems out there. After all, nobody's locking me up for having an opinion.
The person who has changed my mind about taking more of a role in the political process is Ralph Nader. He is someone who I’ve followed for some time. I’ve read a lot of his columns and his policy books on tort reform, free trade, the airline industry, and pharmaceuticals. He does not, nor has he ever, strike me as a crackpot, anti-capitalist, or anti-business. His platform of making corporations take responsibility and his ideas on smarter government spending and campaign finance reform appeal to me in a very big way.
I’ve never considered myself a Republican or a Democrat, preferring to vote for the person rather then the party. Even that's been pretty hard since Reagan. Both parties have things that appeal to me. From an economic standpoint, I’ve tended to lean Republican. On cultural issues, I’ve been more comfortable with the Democratic platform (Mind you, this was before Gore started proposing flushing the 1st amendment). Similarly, I’ve never considered myself a Liberal or a Conservative.
I'm repeating that because I want to make something clear: This is not a protest vote or a protest campaign. I'm not trying to steal votes from Gore so that Bush will get elected, or steal votes from anyone for that matter. I think that the reason 100 million American citizens of voting age did not go to the poles for the last election were from disgust, not apathy, and these are the people I'm trying to reach (since I'm practically one myself).
George W. Bush and Al Gore as the worst case scenario of the two-party system; they represent all of the things that I don’t like from each party, and are so similar as to be made laughable. If either one of them get elected, I can promise that you will see:
-> No campaign finance reform.
-> No balanced budget
-> A continuing increase in the division between the richest and poorest
-> Further degradation of the health care system
-> Further degradation of the educational system
-> An increase in the patently insane defense spending that in addition to flying in the face of military advisors at the highest levels of the pentagon only helps the private defense industry and corrodes our military readiness. (Don’t get me started on the ridiculous things that GE/McDonnell Douglas/Boeing do with our tax dollars)
-> No changes in the continuing trend of hobbling our environmental regulations.
Why? Because doing these things would require convictions that G.W. and Al don't gave it.
Disagree?
Gore The Congressman published books about the importance of environmentalism and proposed legislature as a congressman for strengthening the Clean Air Act. Gore the VP did not believe enough in the environment to testify when the Clean Air Act had its jurisdiction reduced. He addressed congress on welfare reform, but the Clean Air Act wasn't worth it.
And not that anyone should determine their vote on one issue (abortion rights), but Gore The Congressman was vehemently Pro-Life. In fact, he was one of 10 democrats who voted in ’84 to remove Medicaid funding for abortions, even when considered a medical necessity, and he was the only Democrat who backed an amendment that removed funding in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at stake. In 84, he was the only Democrat to support an amendment to a civil rights bill that granted unborn children full civil rights. Gore the Candidate talks a lot of pro-choice talk, but I think he just believes that the pro-choice people will vote for him blindly.
It's harder to find contradictions in Bush's record, but this is only because he barely has one. If you look at his campaign speeches, though, it's not hard to see the contridictions. Much of his campaiging in 1999 had to do with helping out the oil industry in the form of tax cuts. Now he distances himself from big oil. When running against McCain, he promoted himself as right wing. Now he has softened up his platform towards "compassionate conservatism." Nowhere in his acceptance speech (that I can find at least) does he speak for more than a sentance on the issues that would differentiate him from non-compassionate conservatives.
All this is by way of saying that Bush and Gore will promise or do anything to get your vote and then turn their backs on you and their promises as soon as they get elected. This is how it's been for as long as I can remember; maybe it's always been this way. Maybe if Nader gets elected he'll turn his back on the people, but I don't believe it.
Think about yourself and your family. Are you better off now then you were 8 years ago? 12 years ago? 20 years ago? I don't mean in an airfare-is-cheaper, cars-are-faster, music-is-louder, Coke-tastes-better kind of way. I mean, how much harder do you and your family have to work to make the same amount of money? How much more difficult is it for you to keep your head above water? If not you, your friends and family? Your parents and grandparents?
Two more questions: Do you really like Gore? Do you really like Bush? If the answer is not "Yes" then think about why.
This year, it’s not a case of voting for the person that you hate the least (or for the majority, not voting at all). There is a candidate who has a record of working for democracy. Not as a Liberal or Conservative, not as a Republican or Democrat, but as a citizen. Bush and Gore represent the politics of the special interests. Think about what you're voting for.
<font color="#000000">[Edited by DanCasey.com on October 18, 2000 (edited 1 time)]</font>
The person who has changed my mind about taking more of a role in the political process is Ralph Nader. He is someone who I’ve followed for some time. I’ve read a lot of his columns and his policy books on tort reform, free trade, the airline industry, and pharmaceuticals. He does not, nor has he ever, strike me as a crackpot, anti-capitalist, or anti-business. His platform of making corporations take responsibility and his ideas on smarter government spending and campaign finance reform appeal to me in a very big way.
I’ve never considered myself a Republican or a Democrat, preferring to vote for the person rather then the party. Even that's been pretty hard since Reagan. Both parties have things that appeal to me. From an economic standpoint, I’ve tended to lean Republican. On cultural issues, I’ve been more comfortable with the Democratic platform (Mind you, this was before Gore started proposing flushing the 1st amendment). Similarly, I’ve never considered myself a Liberal or a Conservative.
I'm repeating that because I want to make something clear: This is not a protest vote or a protest campaign. I'm not trying to steal votes from Gore so that Bush will get elected, or steal votes from anyone for that matter. I think that the reason 100 million American citizens of voting age did not go to the poles for the last election were from disgust, not apathy, and these are the people I'm trying to reach (since I'm practically one myself).
George W. Bush and Al Gore as the worst case scenario of the two-party system; they represent all of the things that I don’t like from each party, and are so similar as to be made laughable. If either one of them get elected, I can promise that you will see:
-> No campaign finance reform.
-> No balanced budget
-> A continuing increase in the division between the richest and poorest
-> Further degradation of the health care system
-> Further degradation of the educational system
-> An increase in the patently insane defense spending that in addition to flying in the face of military advisors at the highest levels of the pentagon only helps the private defense industry and corrodes our military readiness. (Don’t get me started on the ridiculous things that GE/McDonnell Douglas/Boeing do with our tax dollars)
-> No changes in the continuing trend of hobbling our environmental regulations.
Why? Because doing these things would require convictions that G.W. and Al don't gave it.
Disagree?
Gore The Congressman published books about the importance of environmentalism and proposed legislature as a congressman for strengthening the Clean Air Act. Gore the VP did not believe enough in the environment to testify when the Clean Air Act had its jurisdiction reduced. He addressed congress on welfare reform, but the Clean Air Act wasn't worth it.
And not that anyone should determine their vote on one issue (abortion rights), but Gore The Congressman was vehemently Pro-Life. In fact, he was one of 10 democrats who voted in ’84 to remove Medicaid funding for abortions, even when considered a medical necessity, and he was the only Democrat who backed an amendment that removed funding in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at stake. In 84, he was the only Democrat to support an amendment to a civil rights bill that granted unborn children full civil rights. Gore the Candidate talks a lot of pro-choice talk, but I think he just believes that the pro-choice people will vote for him blindly.
It's harder to find contradictions in Bush's record, but this is only because he barely has one. If you look at his campaign speeches, though, it's not hard to see the contridictions. Much of his campaiging in 1999 had to do with helping out the oil industry in the form of tax cuts. Now he distances himself from big oil. When running against McCain, he promoted himself as right wing. Now he has softened up his platform towards "compassionate conservatism." Nowhere in his acceptance speech (that I can find at least) does he speak for more than a sentance on the issues that would differentiate him from non-compassionate conservatives.
All this is by way of saying that Bush and Gore will promise or do anything to get your vote and then turn their backs on you and their promises as soon as they get elected. This is how it's been for as long as I can remember; maybe it's always been this way. Maybe if Nader gets elected he'll turn his back on the people, but I don't believe it.
Think about yourself and your family. Are you better off now then you were 8 years ago? 12 years ago? 20 years ago? I don't mean in an airfare-is-cheaper, cars-are-faster, music-is-louder, Coke-tastes-better kind of way. I mean, how much harder do you and your family have to work to make the same amount of money? How much more difficult is it for you to keep your head above water? If not you, your friends and family? Your parents and grandparents?
Two more questions: Do you really like Gore? Do you really like Bush? If the answer is not "Yes" then think about why.
This year, it’s not a case of voting for the person that you hate the least (or for the majority, not voting at all). There is a candidate who has a record of working for democracy. Not as a Liberal or Conservative, not as a Republican or Democrat, but as a citizen. Bush and Gore represent the politics of the special interests. Think about what you're voting for.
<font color="#000000">[Edited by DanCasey.com on October 18, 2000 (edited 1 time)]</font>
