Why Not Ralph? (Here's why, from the man who should be the Green Choice!)

[BurtWorm]

(David Cobb. Pass it on.)

http://www.greensforimpact.com/doc/wnn.cfm

I. Competing with the Greens, Drifting to the Center

Ralph Nader has done a great service to society through his efforts on behalf of consumer issues and other progressive causes. In 2000, he showed some commitment to fostering a progressive alternative to the Democratic Party. This election cycle is different. Ralph Nader is now putting the thrust of his efforts into building an "independent" alternative to the Democratic Party, but not necessarily one that is progressive at its core. Hence, he has rejected the Green Party label, and will likely be running against the GPUS in several states. The purity of Nader's left-leaning challenge to the Democrats can be called into question as he has engaged in the very sort of political expediency even he decries. He has sought, and attained, the nomination of the Reform Party, and has flirted with the cult-like New Alliance Party headed by Lenora Fulani. He has also suggested that John Kerry select centrist politicians such as John Edwards or Dick Gephardt as his running mate. This signals to us that it is time to move on, as Ralph Nader has moved on from the Green Party. In fact, in 2000, Nader made the oft-heard claim that the differences between the Republicans and Democrats were so small that they could be dismissed, so as to justify his electoral "strategy." In the same breath he belied his own claims, as he credited himself with having helped bring out voters to elect Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell in Washington, despite the fact that Nader believes her party is no better than the Republicans. David Cobb responds to this contradiction with the statement that "it is disingenuous and dishonest and inaccurate to say there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.... The difference is incremental, but it is not inconsequential." As longtime Nader friend and progressive author, Micah Sifry has said, "There was a time when I could trust Ralph to be intellectually honest, but I don't feel that way anymore." Let us continue building a truly progressive alternative to the dominant parties in 2004.

...

[bluestateguy]

1. If they were serious about defeating Bush they would endorse Kerry

But that's OK, they can go play their little games while the grownups work on evicting the Baby Bush from the White House.

[BurtWorm]

2. They actually do tacitly endorse Kerry over Bush

Actually, damn close to explicitly:

http://www.greensforimpact.com/doc/wjk.cfm

I. The Difference Between Bush and Kerry

While John Kerry does not agree with us on all issues, we must be mindful of the fact that though Kerry’s positions and record on Iraq, fair trade, and corporate welfare are not ideal, his stances on many of these issues are preferable to, though not directly opposite those of George W. Bush. In addition, we must bear in mind that these are not the only issues about which progressives care. The fact John Kerry has supported public financing of campaigns, believes in a woman’s right to choose, is against the death penalty, and has a near-perfect voting record with the NAACP, the Sierra Club, and the AFL-CIO, indicates that a Kerry presidency would be a vast improvement over that of George W. Bush in at least several key areas. For working families, racial and ethnic minorities, women, union members, GLBT and other groups, George W. Bush’s policies have had real and long-term negative consequences on the quality of their lives that cannot be ignored. John Kerry offers the real chance to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, while restoring social spending needed by our nation's poor, as he has pledged to do. While these subjugated groups would greatly benefit from the election of more progressive independent and third party candidates, John Kerry is the only left-of-center candidate who can realistically defeat Bush in November. That voters have so few choices of candidates who can actually win is an unfortunate consequence of our electoral rules, but it is nonetheless true.

While we all agree that voting one's conscience is virtuous, just what does our conscience tell us? If you live in a swing state, progressives are going to need every united vote they can muster, and as mentioned above John Kerry is the only candidate who can garner enough votes to defeat Bush. Does your conscience tell you to elect someone who will bring some degree of progress to civil rights, the environment, and poverty issues, or does it merely want to make a "statement"? Does your conscience tell you to support a candidate who believes in international environmental treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol, or does it tell you that the Bush/Kerry divergence on this issue is inconsequential? Does your conscience actually tell you that John Kerry would give a multi-billion dollar, no-bid contract to Dick Cheney's Halliburton corporation for "services" in Iraq? Does your conscience tell you that John Kerry's consistent opposition to the death penalty does not stand in stark contrast to George W. Bush's 152 Texas executions? Vote your conscience.

[BurtWorm]

3. kick

[BurtWorm]

4. kick