I am not too concerned with the addition of Ralph Nader into the presidential foray. That is, assuming Obama is the Democratic nominee (which is looking good right now). I am not worried for a few reasons. One, I think since the 2000 Florida Gore-Nader debacle, a lot of would-be Nader voters have become a bit disenchanted. I mean, they have to be kicking themselves just a tad, if you consider what we've had for the last 7+ years now. In fact, according to the all knowing Wikipedia, Nader received an impressive 2.74% of the popular vote in '00, compared to just 0.89% in '04. People know the stakes. Some may say that John McCain is slightly less scary than Bush was in '00 or '04, but I wouldn't be so sure. Secondly, a lot of Nader's vote comes from the farthest left portion of the spectrum, these potential would be Democratic voters. The reason why I say "if Obama is the candidate" is his broad coalition of support. Being the most liberal Senator this past year, Obama touts his support from independents and even some straying Republicans - something we've all heard about. And that is impressive. But he also does very well with this farthest left group. I would be surprised if Nader gets more than 1% in this election. And if its so close again that 1% will make a difference than we are doing something wrong in drawing contrasts with the GOP. I mean if we can't beat a "moderate" pro-war, pro-quagmire, from a fractured, wounded party - by more than 1% - we don't deserve to win. So I am not worried.
Tonight was a great night for SLP alumni. Congratulations to the Coen bros., you consistently make us proud. I only hope that the success of so many SLP alumni bodes well for us...
On a serious note, I was asked to blog about a problem that doesn't get a lot of attention. The request came from someone we all know well, but will remain anonymous. I think you'll be able to guess. Capital letters are posing a real danger to local eyelid farms. Please direct donations to the Nick Nelson Local Eyelid Farm Awareness Fund, or NNEFAF.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
And if its so close again that 1% will make a difference than we are doing something wrong in drawing contrasts with the GOP. I mean if we can't beat a "moderate" pro-war, pro-quagmire, from a fractured, wounded party - by more than 1% - we don't deserve to win. So I am not worried.
That was basically the point that Nader made. To wit:
"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form," Nader said, according to The Washington Post. "You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication he's the candidate for perpetual war?"
That's a fair point, I think. Still, I think it's a joke that he feels the need to enter this race every four years.
Also, Devin, you need to use labels for your posts. What if people are trying to filter through the blog's posts and locate only articles relating to the potential harm that capital letters pose to eyelid farms?
I have to say that's your comment about McCain being close to as scary as Bush only follows the media's skewed version of McCain's politics that has been pushed around lately.
Read this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26brooks.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
McCain has made a lot of mistakes and I'm not hear saying I am voting for him, but John McCain in the White House will not look like the Bush Presidency. Underneath the compromises, McCain has been much more of a true conservative and perhaps you are worried about a "pro-war" candidate, but it is just as suspicious to easily take the Obama/Hilary Iraq plans at their word without considering the changing tide of the situation.
Once again, I am not trying to support McCain's campaign, but merely make a point that liberals should not get into this partisan hackery anymore. McCain is not the next George Bush and liberals should be a little more fair in their criticisms and attack his desire to stay in Iraq too long, for instance, instead of merely calling him a "war monger" or "pro-war" candidate and throwing him in the pile with the rest of the problematic Republican lot.
I certainly agree that McCain is a far better candidate than Bush, and I wouldn't be nearly as outraged with him in office.
However, I will say that I don't think calling him a "war monger" is really all that inaccurate, or that it represents "throwing him in the pile with the rest of the problematic Republican lot." McCain is more pro-war than almost any other politician in the country. He's a hawk, and he comes from generations of military background. If he takes over the country, I fully believe he will act as a war general. There are times when that type of aggressiveness is necessary, but in general I think he would only further alienate the United States from the rest of the world. I just do not think that he's the type of president this country needs right now.
Post a Comment