17 reasons not to vote for Barack Obama

[veginator]

This is from Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader's Vice Presidential running mate in this, Nader's 4th Presidential campaign. To his reasons I would add an 18th: Obama, like McCain and most of the Congressional leaders, supports the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. Personally, I support Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney (http://votetruth08.com), but I think Nader is also a good vote for saying "NO!" to the corrupt US political system.--Veginator

 

 

17 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA -- VOTE NADER-GONZALEZ INSTEAD!

 

1. Barack Obama ran as a peace candidate … during the primaries. … However, once he captured the nomination, he quickly changed his tune. He now says he will defer to the judgment of the commanders in the field. (See his July 2, 2008 speech in Colorado Springs.)

 

In short: Obama's current position on Iraq is essentially the same as that John McCain and George Bush.

 

[Note: Personally, I don't agree that Obama ever REALLY ran as a "peace candidate." He noted that he had spoken out against the Iraq war before it began, but he never said he would be ending the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan any time in the foreseeable future. He has also consistently supported huge military budgets and other hawkish policies. -- Veginator]

 

2. Several months ago, Barack Obama, along with the rest of the Senate, gave George Bush the green light to invade Iran. (The Senate to Bush: “If you invade Iran, we won't object.”)

 

3.) Obama wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan. In a July 14th "New York Times" op-ed piece, Obama proposed sending 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan – the same number as was recommended by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen!

 

NOTE: Afghanistan is the 20th country the United States has bombed since the end of World War II. *Before* Bush started bombing Afghanistan, one out of every 7 Afghans were either starving or in imminent danger of starving. … ... This is the country to which Barack Obama wants to send more US troops, more US firepower, more misery, more deaths.

 

4.) Obama has threatened to invade Pakistan. Indeed the invasion has already started – without a word from Barack Obama.

 

5.) In the same July 2, 2008 speech in Colorado Springs cited above, Obama praised the US military and vowed to increase its ranks. Obama has called for an overall increase of American ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines.

 

6.) Obama has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $550 billion.

 

7.) The Pentagon budget is over $500 billion dollars a year. Both Obama and McCain want to *increase* that budget.

 

8.) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing the US taxpayer

15 billion dollars per month. See http://www.costofwar.com/

 

9.) Over 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of Gulf War II. See the following http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/

 

[Note: Obama has voted for funding for the Iraq war all but once since he has been in the Senate. He said during the debate that he intended to "reduce" combat troops (but not other troops or private mercenaries) in Iraq 1 1/2 years from now! -- Veginator]

 

10.) Obama voted to confirm Condeleeeza Rice, as well as a host of other Bush nominees.

 

11.) In 2006, Obama went out of his way to campaign for Joe Lieberman, in Lieberman’s primary fight against antiwar, *progressive* candidate Ned Lamont.

 

12.) In a June 29, 2008 "Times of London" article Richard Danzig quotes Obama's top military adviser as saying: "My personal position is (that Robert) Gates (Bush's Secretary of Defense) is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."

 

13.) Obama voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act.

 

14.) Obama voted for the F.I.S.A. bill – after vowing not to.

 

15.) Immediately after he captured the nomination, Barack Obama appointed Josh Furman, a former Clinton administration official, as his chief economic advisor. See "Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama's Economic Policy" -- http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/10/9534/

 

In 2005, Furman published a 16-page paper titled, "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story." In short, Josh Furman, Barack Obama's chief economic advisor, believes that Walmart's is good for America.

 

16.) In an interview he gave to the N.Y. Times on September 20, 2008, Obama said that "he does not rule out retaining Mr. Paulson, a Republican. The two have spoken almost daily since Treasury put the mortgage giants Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac into government conservatorships two weeks ago, and Mr. Obama speaks highly of Mr. Paulson."

 

Note: Paulson was the former CEO of Goldman Sachs.

 

Quoting from a recent article by Bill Van Auken, entitled, “Obama’s Response to Financial Meltdown: Deception and Subservience to Wall Street” --

 

“The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions, listed Goldman Sachs as the top source of campaign funds for the Obama campaign. The watchdog group added that Wall Street’s stake in the Democratic candidate is probably even larger. “Since his campaign has ignored repeated requests... to disclose his bundlers’ employers and occupations,” it pointed out, “these figures are probably undercounts.”

 

“In addition to Wall Street, the Obama campaign has raised some $13.4 million from the finance, insurance and real estate sector and $2 million from the commercial banks, again outstripping McCain.

 

“Given this financial banking, Obama’s posturing as a champion “Main Street” and the scourge of “special interests” is just as absurd as McCain’s vow to fight “greed” on Wall Street.

 

“Equally dishonest is the Democratic candidate’s repeated assertion that the present crisis is the outcome of policies pursued simply over the past eight years. Conveniently ignored is the fact that the frontal assault on the working class that lay the foundations for the present economic setup in America was initiated under the Democratic Carter administration 30 years ago and that the most sweeping deregulation of the financial markets was carried out under the Democrat Clinton.”

 

Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s19.shtml

 

17.) Many right-wing supporters are *delighted* with Obama’s move to the right. So delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" -- whose editorial board generally reflects not just the right-wing but the right-wing within the Bush administration -- so delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" regarding Obama's recent lurch to the right, especially as regards Iraq, that on July 2, 2008, they published an editorial entitled "Bush's Third Term." In it, they gloatingly stated: "“Maybe he (Obama) is worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate running for it (Bush's third term).”

 

Click here for at least a dozen *more* reasons not to vote for Barack Obama – “The Obama Craze; Count Me out,” by Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader’s vice-presidential running mate -- http://newsblaze.com/story/20080302075722tsop.nb/topstory.html

[VeganDeVil]

Very much NOT looking to argue any of your points or engage in a political back and forth, I completely understand and agree with everything you've written.....

 

However..... no third party candidate is going to get the following or press coverage needed to win. I wish the media and debates were fairer about that (oh the dashed hopes I've had for Kucinich!! ).

 

But I'm curious..... wouldn't you concur that this particular year it might be better to vote for the 'lesser' of the two evils? McCain could very easily end up being our next president.... freakin' PALIN could very easily end up being president! Wouldn't you agree that that would be so much worse than Obama? Simply pitting their prospective reigns side by side?

 

Really.... imagine a Palin presidency for a second....!!

 

Seems like something out of a bad 80's movie, doesn't it? Try sitting through that entire Katie Couric interview.

 

Again, not trying to debate any of the facts presented..... just thought I'd ask your opinion on this particular thought.

 

Cause things are BAD. If McSame wins.... well.... Canada better have a couch for me to crash on!

[Im Your Man]

 

However..... no third party candidate is going to get the following or press coverage needed to win. I wish the media and debates were fairer about that (oh the dashed hopes I've had for Kucinich!! ).

it's always like that, the best ones are the less popular, but you must stick to your 1st choice, no matter if it doesn't have any chance to win, it may help the guy to have more votes at the next elections, and one day...

Cause things are BAD. If McSame wins.... well.... Canada better have a couch for me to crash on!

Sure, I'll be your touring guide I heard many Americans flew on the other side of the border especially because of the war in Iraq and also after Bush got reelected.

[VeganDeVil]

it's always like that, the best ones are the less popular, but you must stick to your 1st choice, no matter if it doesn't have any chance to win, it may help the guy to have more votes at the next elections, and one day...

 

My point is that this election marks a pivotal time in our history.... never has the country been so divided, never have we been so hated worldwide. I voted for Nader in 2000.... I'm all for following one's heart.... but never have I been so worried about my personal liberties as an American and as a woman. In 2000, only 8 years ago, it wasn't unheard of to be a centrist. Today, that doesn't exist. I'm digressing, I don't want to argue anything.

 

In light of the situation of today, election time 2008 in the very unstable America of 2008...... versus election time of 8 or 12 years ago, I was curious what Veginator's (or anyone's!) thoughts might be in regards to voting for your first choice..... does our situation today versus our situation in less imperative times make a difference? Should it?

 

(Obviously there have always been issues to stand up and fight for.... I'm not saying 2000 was any utopia!)

[Im Your Man]

yeah, I must admit, United States are at a crucial point, it may be good to go strategically. I must admit I don't follow U.S. politics too much, nor any other countrie's politics. To me, they're all crazy and it's getting worse and worse, just look at the new governements for France and Canada, they're all some Bush clones.

[VeganDeVil]

Sure, I'll be your touring guide

Sweet.

[veganmomma]

Sure, I'll be your touring guide

Sweet.

I need one too.

[veginator]

Very much NOT looking to argue any of your points or engage in a political back and forth, I completely understand and agree with everything you've written.....

 

Aww, but I like political debate. Maybe you've noticed!

 

However..... no third party candidate is going to get the following or press coverage needed to win. I wish the media and debates were fairer about that (oh the dashed hopes I've had for Kucinich!! ).

 

The point isn’t to win, as of course that’s not going to happen. The point is to speak the truth about the corrupt, corporate-indentured politics of mainstream politicians in both major parties, rather than putting all the blame on the Republicans for wars, economic collapse, global warming, “free trade,” the Patriot Act, 50 million uninsured Americans, and all manner of disasters that most Democrats have actually collaborated fully in. If people both turn a blind eye to how beholden to corporate interests the mainstream Democrats are and how awful most of their policies are and fail to hold them accountable for their betrayals of working people’s interests, I can’t see how we’ll ever have hope to build a better society. In the long run, what’s necessary is to organize a political party in a much broader sense than just electoral politics that’s to the left of the Democrats, one that not only runs candidates but functions as an organizing framework for social movements outside the ballot box.

 

But I'm curious..... wouldn't you concur that this particular year it might be better to vote for the 'lesser' of the two evils? McCain could very easily end up being our next president.... freakin' PALIN could very easily end up being president! Wouldn't you agree that that would be so much worse than Obama? Simply pitting their prospective reigns side by side?

 

I’ve been voting since 1980, and there hasn’t been a single Presidential election year where Democrats and their supporters haven’t said the very same thing—“This time” we have to vote for the lesser evil, because the greater evil (Reagan, Bush I, Dole, and the current Bush) is so much worse. Then they’d proceed to list all the ways in which the Republican candidate was indeed worse, or in which they thought the Republican was worse—there’d always be a few cases where many of the Democrat’s supporters would distort or cover up some of their candidate’s shortcomings. And they’d say things like “A vote for [insert third-party candidate here] is really a vote for the Republicans," trying to scare potential third-party supporters into believing (or express their own fear about the possibility) that it was really likely that a Democrat was going to lose the Presidential election, or election to some lesser office, because of the votes received by some third-party candidate. Rarely would there be any honest discussion of the various ways in which the mainstream candidates were more similar than different—their support for wars, for dictatorships in other countries, for absurd military budgets that existed for the purpose of unprovoked attacks on other countries, for fiddling while the earth burned, for pursuing all manner of policies that made the rich ever-richer, for the deregulation that has gotten us into this mess. Democrats try, basically, to scare us into voting for them by raising the specter of the Republican bogeyman who would take office instead if they didn’t.

 

Another thing that goes unmentioned is that at least in Presidential politics there has not been even one out of more than 50 US elections where a Democrat lost because of the amount of support a third-party candidate received. That’s not to say that it couldn’t ever happen, but it’s not likely to happen in Presidential politics where the electoral college system means most states (California, for example!) are won by wide margins and there’s basically zero risk in voting third party if you happen to live in them.

 

Sometimes people claim that Nader voters cost Gore the 2000 election, but they don’t acknowledge that the Bush campaign stole that election and the Gore campaign did very little to try to stop the theft of the election. It would have taken roughly double the 2.7% Nader got for Nader’s total to have truly aided Bush’s victory—and that was one of the closest Presidential races of all time.

 

Democrat-supporting people involved in political activism do this sort of dance every election season where they stop working on whatever cause they’re working on, say anti-war and anti-militarism activism, and then they get involved in the campaign of a lesser-evil candidate like Obama who is not on their side in any meaningful way. In the process, they stop talking about his support for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, his bellicose line toward Iran and Pakistan, his support for ever-greater miltiary budgets, etc. They go from being effective activists to shills for Obama (or whoever the "lesser evil" is that year), essentially. In the long run, many become permanent Democratic Party operatives and abandon their activist roots. All this happens out of fear of the Republicans getting elected due to there being meaningful support for third-party candidates to the left of the Democrats. Political progress is continually being limited in the US by people's political actions being so often driven by their fears rather than their hopes and dreams. I can't imagine anti-slavery activists in the 19th Century voting for a candidate who supported slavery because they were better than the other major candidate on some other issue, can you?

 

But what would be possible if we voted our hopes instead of our fears? Instead of comparing the alternative scenarios of Obama being President because progressively inclined people voted for him vs. the highly unlikely scenario of McCain being President because many who slightly preferred Obama voted third-party, we should be thinking about what it would mean if people who were truly dissatisfied with the corporate toadyism of Obama and other mainstream Democrats started holding their feet to the fire and building a strong political opposition to the left of the Democrats.

If people on the left had a better sense of the value of their standing up for what they believe in rather than continually "voting for what they don't want and getting it," as Eugene Debs put it, we would be in a lot better shape, because Democrats could no longer take their votes for granted and ignore what they want, as is the case now. Let's say Nader had gotten 5.4% instead of 2.7% in 2000. We'd still have had the same electoral result, but the Green Party would have been a much stronger third party, thanks to both the greater numbers and the federal matching funds it would have received for the next election if Nader had gotten over 5%.

 

And if we look back to the '30s, Roosevelt did what he did because there was so much public pressure to do something. He didn't come into office with any sort of reputation as a liberal reformer! He feared not only third-party candidacies (Socialist Norman Thomas got 2.2% in 1932), but the possibility of a revolution! I can't help wondering how much farther the New Deal would have had to go (maybe we'd have gotten national health insurance back then?) if the leaders of the labor movement hadn't been so successful in keeping electoral opposition within the "safe" confines of the Democratic Party following 1932. Returning to our present situation, we're on the cusp of possibly another Great Depression. Our economy is going to go into a further tailspin regardless of what the government does, so the importance of being consistent and vocal about the government not using hundreds of billions in taxpayer money to line the pockets of Wall Street speculators, which is exactly what Obama and most other Congressional Democrats want to do, can't be overemphasized. We've got to keep the pressure on, and guaranteeing Democrats our votes does not accomplish that.

Edited September 30, 2008 by veginator

[tuc]

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF WHAT'S GOOD VOTE FOR BARACK OR WE WILL HAVE A F**KING LUNATIC CREATIONIST SOCCER MOM AS THE PRESIDENT OF USA IN A FEW YEARS!

 

You have to pick Barack. Voting for any other is like voting for McCain. You can be as liberal as you want in the next elections but this time, it's for real. PLEASE! The world doesn't need Barack, but it REALLY needs McCain not to win!

[veginator]

This kind of thinking is why the Democrats feel free to ignore voters who don't like much of what they do, election after election. They know they can take their votes for granted, so there's no electoral pressure on them from the left. We know that it's possible for Democrats to worry about their electoral chances; look at how public pressure resulted in the defeat of this bailout bill that nobody thought would be defeated. So why not keep up the pressure?

 

Throughout history, people have risked their lives and their freedom for various political causes. And voters aren't willing to risk voting for a third-party candidate, when there's never been a single case in American history when votes for a third-party candidate have changed the outcome of the Presidential election? Not even if they live in a state where either Obama or McCain has a huge lead in the polls? We need to have a little more guts than that. If we don't, things are just going to keep getting worse, especially given that by all indications we're heading into the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. In such circumstances, it's especially important for people to stand up for their convictions.

 

 

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF WHAT'S GOOD VOTE FOR BARACK OR WE WILL HAVE A F**KING LUNATIC CREATIONIST SOCCER MOM AS THE PRESIDENT OF USA IN A FEW YEARS!

 

You have to pick Barack. Voting for any other is like voting for McCain. You can be as liberal as you want in the next elections but this time, it's for real. PLEASE! The world doesn't need Barack, but it REALLY needs McCain not to win!

[tuc]

Remember Gore vs. Bush in Florida 2000 and think again.

[DV]

I voted for Nader in 2000 but only because I was living in a very blue state so I knew I would not be taking a vote away from Gore. I would like for there to be more choices but would not risk it this year.

 

Even if Nadar did become president, things would stay essentially the same. The President has some power but he/she doesn't control congress or the supreme court. Checks and balances exist. That's not to say that a President can do some good or bad, but more than a few people need to go along with him.

[veginator]

Remember Gore vs. Bush in Florida 2000 and think again.

 

Yeah, I remember it very well. The Republicans stole the Presidential election, disenfranchising tens of thousands of people in Florida alone (it happened elsewhere as well) who either did cast their ballots for Gore or in all probability would have had the Republicans not illegally stricken them from the voter registration rolls. Gore hardly contested the theft of the election at all, mounting a brief Supreme Court challenge over one small portion of the contested votes, and then abandoning the challenge and congratulating Bush for his "victory." What does the Republicans' rigging of elections (which also cost Kerry the 2004 Presidential election due to electronic voting machine fraud in Ohio) have to do with the topic we were discussing, third-party candidates?

[VeganDeVil]

rather than putting all the blame on the Republicans for wars, economic collapse, global warming, “free trade,” the Patriot Act, 50 million uninsured Americans, and all manner of disasters that most Democrats have actually collaborated fully in. If people both turn a blind eye to how beholden to corporate interests the mainstream Democrats are and how awful most of their policies are and fail to hold them accountable for their betrayals of working people’s interests, I can’t see how we’ll ever have hope to build a better society.

I’ve been voting since 1980, and there hasn’t been a single Presidential election year where Democrats and their supporters haven’t said the very same thing—“This time” we have to vote for the lesser evil, because the greater evil (Reagan, Bush I, Dole, and the current Bush) is so much worse.

Good point, and so true. However (and I know I'm young.... this is only the third election I'm voting in), "this time" things ARE worse. 8 years ago the Patriot Act didn't exist, all the major phone companies weren't cooperating in 'freedom driven wire-tapping', our reputation in the world at large wasn't bust, the national debt wasn't bankrupting the country, and we weren't teetering on a financial depression.

 

Perhaps as the years and elections go on, I will feel more inclined to give my vote to a Green Party candidate. But "this time", things feel just too awful not to do everything in my singular power to try and keep McCain and Palin away from the White House.

 

Rarely would there be any honest discussion of the various ways in which the mainstream candidates were more similar than different

Democrats try, basically, to scare us into voting for them by raising the specter of the Republican bogeyman who would take office instead if they didn’t.

True.... and I realize the irony of my posting anything in response to this! But again, I've never felt so scared. My bank just closed! I can't afford to fill up my gas tank! I just can't justify not using my vote to keep McCain away.

 

Another thing that goes unmentioned is that at least in Presidential politics there has not been even one out of more than 50 US elections where a Democrat lost because of the amount of support a third-party candidate received.

Sometimes people claim that Nader voters cost Gore the 2000 election, but they don’t acknowledge that the Bush campaign stole that election and the Gore campaign did very little to try to stop the theft of the election. It would have taken roughly double the 2.7% Nader got for Nader’s total to have truly aided Bush’s victory—and that was one of the closest Presidential races of all time.

So.... hypothetically speaking..... if Nader were more a player in this election..... and he were getting the press and following and aid that he got in 2000...... in the America, world and election of 2008..... then you agree that it WOULD be aiding the conservative machine?

 

'Cause those guys stick TOGETHER! That's the strength of the Republican party.... simple slogans and a deeply loyal following. If we, as 'liberals', more evenly divided between the 'liberally minded' parties, none of them would carry any weight. It's one body of people..... in a time like this, can we afford not to stand together?

 

They go from being effective activists to shills for Obama (or whoever the "lesser evil" is that year), essentially. In the long run, many become permanent Democratic Party operatives and abandon their activist roots.

True. Sigh.

 

If people on the left had a better sense of the value of their standing up for what they believe in rather than continually "voting for what they don't want and getting it," as Eugene Debs put it, we would be in a lot better shape,

Let's say Nader had gotten 5.4% instead of 2.7% in 2000. We'd still have had the same electoral result, but the Green Party would have been a much stronger third party, thanks to both the greater numbers and the federal matching funds it would have received for the next election if Nader had gotten over 5%.

I can't help wondering how much farther the New Deal would have had to go (maybe we'd have gotten national health insurance back then?) if the leaders of the labor movement hadn't been so successful in keeping electoral opposition within the "safe" confines of the Democratic Party following 1932.

You're a smart vegan cookie, Veginator. Thanks for your response, it puts things in perspective. However, I still feel the same way. And sure, it's more motivated by 'fear' than 'hope'....... but it's a scary time...... scarier than I've ever known. The day comes that my bank account is secure, I can afford to buy the groceries I want to buy and fill up my gas tank, I will vote 'hope'. I actually get nervous depositing my work checks! I joke with my boyfriend that I'm going to become one of those paranoid old ladies that keeps all her cash under the mattress. Haha!........ But really, that might happen.

[offense74]

Bush is a moron. He has made the gap between the US and the rest of the world bigger than anyone before him. McCain will make that gap wider, not to mention Palin. Not even the president of the islamic republc of Iran believes that dinosaurs were tamed by humans 4000 years ago. People here just don't get how someone who is sane can vote for anyone like that. She's a joke.

I believe respect is needed to be good friends with someone, I think the same goes between countries.

[VeganDeVil]

omg, offense. I just clicked on the link in your signature to the church of the flying spaghetti monster..... I love it!

[offense74]

omg, offense. I just clicked on the link in your signature to the church of the flying spaghetti monster..... I love it!

And it's real too!!

[CollegeB]

Palin was cool to me when she was just this assault rifle shooting friend of secessionists. She's not cool anymore. I find this with a lot of politicos. I think they're alright until they start talking and information about them comes out. I'm not gonna participate in giving the system some notion of credibility. I don't like any of these scumbag hypocrites. I don't want a ruler; don't need one.

[veginator]

But I'm curious..... wouldn't you concur that this particular year it might be better to vote for the 'lesser' of the two evils? McCain could very easily end up being our next president.... freakin' PALIN could very easily end up being president! Wouldn't you agree that that would be so much worse than Obama? Simply pitting their prospective reigns side by side?

 

To belatedly answer your questions, no, I don't think that it is more important in this particular year to vote for a Democrat to enhance the Democrat's chances of winning than it was in 2004, 2000, or any preceding Presidential election, and no, I don't agree that one would be much worse than the other. Obama and McCain are both equally awful in terms of all the policy areas that I listed at the beginning of this thread. And Obama has actually raised far more cash from wealthy corporate interests than not only McCain, but any presidential candidate in history, including George W. Bush! (See http://www.opensecrets.org for info. on the candidates' fundraising.) And although there are some differences between them, the fact that they are both warmongering servants of corporate America dwarfs the differences in terms of impact.

 

Good point, and so true. However (and I know I'm young.... this is only the third election I'm voting in), "this time" things ARE worse. 8 years ago the Patriot Act didn't exist, all the major phone companies weren't cooperating in 'freedom driven wire-tapping', our reputation in the world at large wasn't bust, the national debt wasn't bankrupting the country, and we weren't teetering on a financial depression.

 

Perhaps as the years and elections go on, I will feel more inclined to give my vote to a Green Party candidate. But "this time", things feel just too awful not to do everything in my singular power to try and keep McCain and Palin away from the White House.

 

And aren't they awful because of the actions of both parties? All but one member of Congress voted for the war in Afghanistan. All but a couple dozen voted for the Patriot Act; most, including Obama, voted for Patriot 2. Many Democrats including Obama voted for continuation of the domestic spying you're referring to. It was Bill Clinton who signed into law the bill, voted for by many Democrats, that did the most to deregulate the financial markets. The neoliberal economic policies that have brought the economy to this point are as much a product of mainstream Democrats like Clinton, Gore, and Obama as they are of the Republicans. Most Democrats including Obama have supported the Iraq war. Democrats voted unanimously not to bring a bill of impeachment against Bush to the House floor for discussion. (Kucinich voted to send his own bill to committee, effectively killing it and preventing further discussion!) And far more Democrats than Republicans voted for the bailout, with Obama leading the charge.

 

True.... and I realize the irony of my posting anything in response to this! But again, I've never felt so scared. My bank just closed! I can't afford to fill up my gas tank! I just can't justify not using my vote to keep McCain away.

 

It makes sense to be scared of McCain, but it makes equal sense to be scared of Obama. They are both warmongering corporate scumbags.

 

 

No, I don't agree. First, as I said, there's very little chance that votes for a third-party candidate would amount to enough to tip the election toward the Republican. The vote isn't very close in most states even if the overall popular vote is close, and in the US electoral college system (where in all but a couple of states, the candidate who wins the state's popular vote gets all of that state's electoral votes) that means that in those states it would take a huge percentage of voters who prefer the Democrat over the Republican voting for a third-party candidate to change the outcome. Even in close states like Florida in 2000, it would have taken around 5%. Keep in mind that a sizable percentage (around half in 2000) of people who vote third-party either wouldn't have voted at all otherwise, or would have voted Republican.

 

And secondly, the "conservative machine" is both parties. The only way to combat the conservative machine (corporate-backed politicians and their backers) is to build up a political force that is independent of the major parties, and not only participates in elections but does a whole lot of other things (strikes, protests, etc.) to both educate the public and exert pressure for change. If we don't do this, then things are never going to change even if the Democrats control both the executive branch and Congress from here to eternity. Well, they'll have to change eventually because we're well on the way to economic and ecological ruin, but even if somehow our current government manages to effect enough changes in the way they do business to end the economic crisis (until the next one) and rein in some of the ecological destruction, they're still going to be screwing us over, whether they're Democrats or Republicans. The only way we're going to make progress in this country is if we declare independence from the Democrats. The sooner, the better.

 

I noticed that you live in California. There's a very practical reason why Californians dissatisfied with the status quo needn't worry about voting third-party: Obama is currently 18 points ahead in the latest California poll. Throughout the entire electoral season, he has consistently been running well ahead of the national polling in the California polls. The only way McCain could win California is if he won the popular vote nationwide by substantially more than 5%, in which case Obama would have lost the election anyway.

 

For me, not only is supporting McKinney (or Nader, if one is so inclined) the right thing to do in terms of the long-term future of the US and the world because we have to build independent political organizations that can do battle with both wings of the corporate political machine, it's also a moral issue. Don't we have to draw a line somewhere and say "I cannot give my vote to someone who does things like that"? Where is that line for you? If, for instance, both the Democratic and Republican candidates supported reinstitution of slavery, is there any way your conscience would allow you to choose one over the other? To me, voting for a candidate who supported slavery would make the voter complicit in slavery even if they personally opposed it. And I don't personally believe that waging wars that kill hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent people, as both Obama and McCain are already doing and would continue to do as President, is any less immoral than slavery. And I hope I don't offend anybody by saying this, and I acknowledge that paying taxes also supports government policies we don't like (and I confess I'm guilty of paying taxes), but to me voting for a candidate who engages in war when one is morally opposed to war is kind of like eating meat when one is morally opposed to killing animals. Even though a meat-eater doesn't necessarily directly kill an animal, he or she still, by eating meat, supports the killing of animals. And even though most voters aren't involved in killing people in whatever wars the US wages, they are still complicit in killing people when they vote for candidates that wage wars. It's always struck me as really ironic as well as undermining their anti-war message when anti-war activists not only vote, but actively campaign, for pro-war candidates.

 

I think people should try to live as consistently with their values as they can, including in the voting booth and electoral politics generally. And, going back to the pragmatic side of things, I think we'd all be better off in the long run if they did.

Edited October 9, 2008 by veginator

[VeganDeVil]

Thanks for that, you've certainly given me adequate food for thought!

 

And opensecrets.org is great, thanks!

[blabbate]

This is from Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader's Vice Presidential running mate in this, Nader's 4th Presidential campaign. To his reasons I would add an 18th: Obama, like McCain and most of the Congressional leaders, supports the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. Personally, I support Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney (http://votetruth08.com), but I think Nader is also a good vote for saying "NO!" to the corrupt US political system.--Veginator

 

Oh, no no no no no. I don't have any issues with wanting to vote for a third party candidate, but not Cynthia McKinney. She's a nut. An out-of-control conspiracy theorist with a big dose of hypocrisy thrown in. I spent 6 years in GA while she was in office and never got used to her crazy statements. Her name was and is a joke to everyone outside of her congressional district. Go with Nader or anyone else first, but please not McKinney.

[Vegan Joe]

Who can you believe?

 

Seven & a half years!

 

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first

six the economy was fine.

 

A little over one year ago:

 

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

 

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

 

3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

 

4) The DOW JONES hit a record high -- 14,000+

 

5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and

vacations overseas, living large!

 

 

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006

they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep -- we got

'CHANGE' all right!

 

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;

 

2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing;

 

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

 

4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12

trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;

 

5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

 

6) THE DOW is probing another low ~11,300 -- $2.5 TRILLION

DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL

FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

 

YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE! AND WE GOT IT! A

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS,

NANCY PELOSI. HARRY REID.

 

Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the

polls say he's gonna be 'the man' -- claims

he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more

'change' do you think you can stand?

Personally I would rather give the job to someone who gave up 5 years of his life as a POW, then someone who had only bullshitted his way through 3 1/2 years of Congress.

But I guess that makes me a racist. LOL

[Bill]

So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress

 

Not quite true. They Dems don't have 60 seats in the Senate, yet.

[veggieprincess]

You have to pick Barack. Voting for any other is like voting for McCain. You can be as liberal as you want in the next elections but this time, it's for real. PLEASE! The world doesn't need Barack, but it REALLY needs McCain not to win!

 

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. Please vote for Barack

 

Remember Gore vs. Bush in Florida 2000 and think again.

 

Ditto again. Please.... no matter what your opinion on Barack, we can't repeat history so please vote for Barack! Lets be practical and SAFE this time!

[blabbate]

Who can you believe?

Seven & a half years!

 

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first

six the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

{snip}

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006

they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep -- we got

'CHANGE' all right!

{snip}

Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the

polls say he's gonna be 'the man' -- claims

he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more

'change' do you think you can stand?

Personally I would rather give the job to someone who gave up 5 years of his life as a POW, then someone who had only bullshitted his way through 3 1/2 years of Congress.

But I guess that makes me a racist. LOL

It doesn't make you a racist, but it doesn't make you smart, either. Our economy doesn't just run on a 2-year sliding window of legislation. It's built on decades of decisions, which makes it bulky and stable, but not nimble. What we're seeing now is the result of poor decisions on both sides of the aisle, as well as in our largest financial institutions. There's enough blame for everyone, from the CEOs and Congress all the way down to the folks taking out loans they couldn't afford.

 

What I care about now is what's going to be done to staunch the bleeding so we can ride it out and recover, which will only partly be in the hands of the new POTUS and will require massive cooperation. And while I respect McCain for his service, 5 years in a POW camp doesn't make him any more qualified to help out during an economic crisis.