A strange thought just occurred to me as I was thinking about the Nader campaign. In 2000, Al Gore lost Florida by 500 votes. Nader drew away 95,000 votes, which more than likely would have gone to Gore. So, we know Nader's campaign is what defeated Al Gore in Florida. So, my strange thought is this: If I were a wealthy republican, and wanted McCain to win, I would contribute the maximum the law would allow to his run for office. But if I were a smart wealthy republican, I would also contribute the same amount to Nader and get people to talk him into running. This way my second contribution would benefit McCain by splitting the Democratic vote once again and hopefully doing the same th... Whatever Nader is, he is surely a third party candidate. And we have no room for third parties inside these borders. The monied interests have control and will not relinquish it to useless democratic notions that inhibit their access to limitless profits at the expense of the vulnerable masses. It is no longer necessary for corporations to be sovereign to any one country. They can exploit whomever they like, including US citizens. Nader speaks about what concerns the majority of US citizens and I believe he will continue to do so as president if we would have enough guts to force a change. This instead of sitting back , watching the horror unfold while blaming the Evil Axis for the crap this country set in motion. This country has no room for a third party it is true. But it doesn't have to do with a conspiracy by the monied interests. When you have a winner take all system (50.1% of the vote gets you 100% of the power) like the U.S. has, two parties are the natural result. There are many candidates who are never heard from..ei: Nader and Kucinich. And THAT is controlled by the money. The money controls who you hear from and who you don't. So, in these times, the 50.1 percent idea doesn't hold much water, though it may have in the past. I can't buy the argument that Nader cost the Democrats the election. Gore cost the Democrats the election. Many of us wanted to send a clear message to the DNC: you have got to give us a better candidate than this. Gore was simply too hawkish, too big-money connected, etc., to attract Nader voters. The nation has moved more to the left as a result of 4 more years of Bush. I'm not sure that would have happened during a Gore Presidency. |
View the Top Clips from February 25, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
