A Vote For Nader is a Vote For
Written by: Alex Sandell
Shame on Al Gore, and the entire Democratic party, for trying to pull off the greatest political one-line lie since Nixon told the world that he was "not a criminal." Now that Gore is falling behind in the polls, he'll stop at nothing to get back the few democratic voters that he's convinced left his Republicrat glee-club for Nader's far more progressive, and impressive, political message. I cannot believe that Gore, and the party, the one that he represents so incredibly poorly, have the nerve to try and convince the American public that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."
Does this mean that if I watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I'm actually viewing The Michael Richard's Show because I didn't tune into Who Wants to be a Millionaire? If I sign up for a creative writing class, am I actually choosing Algebra, because I didn't select Geometry? If I decide to buy a can of Coca-Cola, am I actually slurping down Pepsi because I didn't pick up a Mountain Dew? Of course not. If I watch Buffy, sign up for creative writing, and decide to buy Coca-Cola, I am viewing Buffy while writing creatively and drinking coke. I don't think anyone would disagree with me on these issues, unless they were determined to make themselves out as fools. Yet, I have had numerous susceptible Democrats trying to convince me that if I vote for Ralph Nader I am actually voting for George W. Bush.
If I vote for Ralph Nader, I am voting for Ralph Nader.
I cannot stand George W. Bush's politics, and I would never vote for the man. I cannot stand Al Gore's politics, and I would never vote for the man. I agree with Ralph Nader's politics, and I will vote for the man. Isn't that what democracy is all about? I don't remember when the meaning of democracy changed from "political power residing in all the people, with each citizen sharing equally to do so protected by free elections and other guarantees" to, "WE DEMAND YOU VOTE FOR A PERSON YOU THINK IS EVIL, BECAUSE HE IS THE 'LESSER' OF TWO EVILS, AND IF YOU DON'T, YOU MIGHT GET NAUGHTY PEOPLE LIKE SCALIA, A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AL GORE ACTUALLY VOTED IN FAVOR OF, APPOINTED TO THE SUPREME COURT BY BUSH!" I refuse to buy into this crap, and hopefully so will the rest of America.
According to estimates, nearly 55-60% of eligible voters in this country are not going to vote this election. According to polls, Ralph Nader will get approximately 3-5% of the vote from the 40-45% of people voting. Why, may I ask, is Al Gore addressing THAT 3-5%, instead of appealing to the 55-60% of people who aren't voting for ANYONE? Couldn't any DECENT candidate defeat a lesser opponent very easily by attracting the 55-60% of disaffected voters to their party, and a worthy cause? Of course they could, but Al Gore, like George W. Bush, is a very unattractive candidate with an even more unattractive political platform, and appealing to anyone, outside of seniors, the super rich, and a few-thousand pro-choice fanatics who are sure Roe VS Wade will be overturned the second Bush steps into the oval office, would be nearly impossible. To be honest, the majority of people just don't give a shit about the issues Gore and Bush are running on, and Al Gore isn't willing to do anything to change that, so, instead of appealing to voters through issues, he terrifies them with cheap scare tactics. Gore, the master of "stretching the truth," could easily make junk up to attract that non-voting majority in America, but he doesn't want to because the people who aren't voting are people the DEMONcrats and RepubliCUNTS don't want to have vote.
Both major parties pretend that they want to attract the young, the poor and the minorities, but neither of them do. Why? Because, if the young, the poor, and the minorities came out, in full-force, they would recreate the world, and the world that would be created by them would not be a world that welcomes people like Gore and Bush as its leaders. Do you think minorities want to keep being pushed down, and silenced, through drugs and crime, bad schools and no real way out? Do you think the poor want to keep living in trailer parks, ringing up overpriced Playstation 2 systems at Wal-Mart, while all of this "prosperity" passes them by? Do you think the young want to have their entertainment put on trial, year after year, by "concerned" politicians responding to "concerned" parents? Of course they don't. If you rile them up, and get them off of their apathetic asses, inspiring them to vote, they are going to vote for an alternate voice; a voice like Ralph Nader's or David McReynold's. This doesn't sit well with Gore or Bush.
So, instead of risking losing the election, by attracting voters that simply won't buy into his verbal vomit, Al Gore is trying to win the election by lying to the American public, hoping to convince them not to vote for a superior candidate, like Ralph Nader. Getting that 3-5%, by exploiting those of us who have a social conscience, means everything to Gore, and I say we deny him the pleasure of getting it.
I don't want Gore OR Bush in office, and not many people, even those voting for Gore and Bush, really do. I say that all of them, and all of us, vote for somebody else. Send a message to these pricks. Losers be damned. We're not voting for a Supreme Court Justice; we're voting for the President of the United States of America, and Gore and Bush are not worthy of that title.
Someone emailed me about the first edition of this update, and I thought I'd quickly address an issue that he brought up: voting in the battleground states. I live in Minnesota, which has become a key battleground state. Therefore, it is my obligation, according to the person sending me the email, to reluctantly turn my vote over to Gore, so that Bush doesn't win Minnesota. I refuse to lower myself to that level. Gore didn't earn my vote, and he isn't going to get it.
If you live in a "battleground" state, I recommend, more than ever, that you vote for Ralph Nader, if he is the candidate that you support. Get all your friends to do so, also, if they prefer Nader's politics to Gore's. It is in these states that Ralph Nader needs to get big numbers, and prove that he is a viable candidate. It isn't our obligation to help either of the two major parties win. Al Gore feels that we owe him something, because he has a few beliefs that are a bit more "liberal" than Bush's. We don't owe him, or the Democratic party, a damn thing. The Democrats keep lowering the bar, and we have to finally let them know that, if they don't get their act together, they are going to lose, and that's all there is to it. I don't want to feel compelled to vote for a new low, every four years.
Vote smart. Vote third-party. Vote Nader.
Got any thoughts on this update? Email me! If you don't, I just may get pissy and boycott my own page.
©2000 Alex Sandell [All Rights Reserved]. If you copy this, without my permission, you are not copying Harrison Ford, because you didn't steal from Mark Hamill.
Back to the juicy cerebellum