« Dude, There's My Car! | Main | Pass the Decon Gel »

This is an outdated page we've kept in place for your convenience. Please do not link to it as we can't guarantee it will still be here in the future. If you're looking for something specific on PuddingTime!, please use this search form, which will return results on the new site:

July 21, 2003

Under "B" for "Bloody-mindedness"


I suppose we should commend the Greens for having the courage to live out their convictions as they agree to support the Bush reelection effort.

Posted by mph at July 21, 2003 07:48 PM

Comments

The perfect are the enemy of the good.

Posted by: pk at July 21, 2003 08:05 PM

I am so sick of people saying that a Green presidential candidate will "steal" votes from a democratic candidate. As the Green Party says "no candidate owns anyone’s vote except for his or her own." (http://www.gp.org/organize/spoiled.html)

If the Democrat's presidential candidate doesn't represent my views, why should I vote for them? There is only one candidate I would even consider voting for (Kucinich). Dean, who seems like the favorite of the left-wind Dems, holds some strange views on renewable energy (wood-fired power plants as renewable power) and the death penalty (it's OK for mass murders, child-killers and cop-killers, but no one else).

I would rather Dean or nearly any other Democrat as president over the current pResident, but I won't compromise my own beliefs.

Posted by: Noah at July 21, 2003 08:23 PM

Noah,

Those are fine points, and the Greens are correct when they say each
persons' vote is his or her own, but there are principles and there are principles. There's no telling what post-9/11-traumatic-stress-disorder would have caused a, say, Al Gore to do in the presidency, but we can bet that he wouldn't have packed the defense establishment and state department with neo-cons hell-bent on Pax Americana (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html), and that might have meant a better resolution to "the Iraq problem" than the one we've got so far.

I voted for Nader in 2000, mainly because I lived in Virginia, which has, since the early 1990s, rapidly swung Republican as political considerations finally outstrip the South's traditional cultural issues with the Party of Lincoln. I knew my vote wasn't going to cost Al Gore (who I favored over Bush among those likely to win) an electoral vote. Sure enough, all eight of us Nader voters made no difference... we just got to cast our protest votes and go home.

I guess my sense of duty and principle, however, includes acknowledging the dynamics of the system under which I live and choosing to vote pragmatically when my favorite candidate of three or four will likely not win. "The lesser of two evils is still evil," sure, but sometimes that's the realistic choice with which we're presented.

Posted by: mph at July 21, 2003 08:43 PM

It's funny, but I guess predictable, that you and I made very different decisions in 2000 and came away with very different conclusions. I voted for Gore against my better judgment because he was the lesser of two evils. From the minute I mailed in my ballot till this day I get a sick feeling in my stomach for not voting my conscience.

My vote for a Green candidate will not be a protest vote, but will be a vote for change. I don't believe that the Democrats or the Republicans represent the wishes of the people. I believe that both parties are now more interested in helping corporate "citizens" than the people that are the foundation of this government. I may vote for a Democrat for president again, but the party will have to change a lot before that will happen. I believe that my vote can change this country.

I am however a pragmatist. In the last congressional election I voted for Blumenauer and Bradbury because they were the best candidates (there were no Green candidates however). I voted for Kulongoski as well, but if the Greens had put forth a candidate, I may have voted for them.

I don’t want to see four more years of a Bush pResidency, but I also don’t want to vote for the next worst candidate.

Posted by: Noah at July 21, 2003 11:49 PM

Noah, I did the same thing. It still bothers me. But don't beat yourself up - your mailed-in ballot was probably never counted.

I was going with Dean for 2004 but after attending a "Meet-Up" ("Meet up with a throng of the smugly self-righteous!") I'm thinking I will take my business elsewhere.

(True story: I haven't voted in Florida since 1992. I've lived and voted in two other states since that time. In 1999, my parents received a Voter's Registration Card addressed to me, at an address I've never lived at, registering me to vote in Florida as a republican.

Posted by: Cristina at July 22, 2003 02:34 AM

Noah: I typically have no issue voting Green (or the right kind of Libertarian) on local or state elections because there's hope they'll win there . . . I've seen it happen, and it's made me happy when it has.

My threshold for idealism is lowered at the national level, I'm afraid, especially given our electoral dynamics. Of course, I've completely failed to make good on my vow to infiltrate the Democrats and bend them to my right-of-far-left agenda, so I've probably got some reevaluating to do before the next election.

Posted by: mph at July 22, 2003 08:20 AM

I agree that the likelyhood of a Green being elected to office is much greater on a local (and possibly state) level, but a good showing by a Green candidate on a national level is very important.

A provision of the Presidential Public Funding Program allows for candidates from minor parties (between 5%-25% of the previous election) to recieve a porportionate amount of public funding. This means if a green candidate gets 5% of the vote they can can get 5% of the public funding given to a major party candidate. In 1992 that was $55 million dollars. So the Green party would be eligable for about $2.75 million in public funding. This would allow them to run a very serious campaign.

Posted by: Noah at July 22, 2003 04:56 PM

Noah -

Will you people never learn? As mph says, you have to acknowledge the dynamics of the system within which you work, or vote. Of course no one owns your vote, and of course you're free to vote for whomever you please, but you're sticking your head in the sand if you don't admit the consequences of your vote. If 1/10 of the Nader voters in Florida had voted for Gore, we would have a President Gore today. That's a fact. After 2000, no one can ever say that their vote doesn't count. Go ahead, vote Green; makes a Bush re-election much more likely, and continues the downward spiral of the Democrats.

And if you think that federal funding will allow a Green to "run a serious campaign", you're forgetting just who would receive the money. I have yet to see a Green candidate that is capable of running a serious campaign. Nader? Nope. McKinney? You have to be joking. An anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist is not exactly a viable candidate. You've got to come up with better personnel.

Posted by: brett at July 22, 2003 06:49 PM

Noah, we are both left-wing believers, but I simply cannot comprehend how voting for Gore could upset one's stomach more than having Bush as president. Among announced candidates, I strongly favor Kucinich, but I will vote for John Kerry, John Edwards, or John McCain to end this administration. I will GLADLY compromise on my presidential vote to unseat Bush. GLADLY!

Your vote shouldn't be a precious thing kept in a glass case for ceremonial use only: it should be a tool that you don't mind getting dirty when there's work to be done. From the far-left to the center, we need to form a massive coalition and bring down the Bush administration. Bush won without even a majority, let alone a mandate, and the damage he has done is impossible to estimate.

Some may choose to live in a world of uncompromised beliefs and vanity voting, but such ideological purity isn't doing the real world a bit of good. $2.75 million will only buy a nice series of public-service ads for people to ignore. Your vote only has power if you use it where it can do the most good, so vote the full slate of local Greens and build grass-roots progressive influence, but when it comes to the national candidates, if your vote could tip your state towards the lesser of two evils, that's still LESS EVIL.

I'm not arguing, I'm begging: Until the halo'd savior of progressive humanism comes to reign in eternal Goodness, please, just settle for less evil.

Posted by: pk at July 22, 2003 06:54 PM