With all the elction talk in the air these days it brings me back to the last election, and I have a hard time believing how wrong I was. At the time I supported Bush over Gore, although it was in my mind clearly a choice of which I disliked least, as I thought both candidates sucked. But my reasoning a the time was this: * I really bought into the whole idea of Bush being bi-partisan, relatively speaking. His record in Texas seemed to support this idea, and I find partisan bickering annoying. * I liked his team, God help me. Although Powell was by a mile and a half the largest part of that, I even supported the nomination of Cheney as VP, who I though made up for Bush's more glaring weaknesses, especially lack of experience. I didn;t like Lieberman. * I supported his position on abortion, but as this always is an either/or with the death penalty, which i also oppose, it's always a coin flip for me on this. * I felt he was simply a better leader than Gore. Admittedly this was somewhat akin to being taller than Tattoo, but Gore was just so wooden, uncomfortable, and seemingly uncomfortable in his own skin that it made Bush seem at least human in comparison. * I liked the idea of someone being out of the box a bit, not so much in terms of blue collar work your way up, but less of a career politician. At the time I had some serious reservations, namely his earlier record/lack of real credentials, his death penalty enthusiasm, the fact that he wasn't that bright, and the whole nepotism angle, and in my defense I was so turned off by both candidates that I was pretty apathetic in researching the candidates, but when Florida came down, I felt somewhat redeemed as I felt Bush handled the situation with much more class than Gore, who seemed to constantly be shifting his final demands with each setback. Almost a full term later, and I am in the incredibly uncomfortable position of having helped elect the worst President I've ever heard of in recent history. I used to think that Kennedy, Nixon or possibly Carter, for differning reasons, held that title, but now it's not even close. I think Bush is the worst political thing to happen to the US, and by extension the globe in my lifetime, and I am partly responsible. Another chicken coming home to roost for me is that among my greatest complaints about US politics has historically been my disdain for intentional gridlock, wherein we would routinely elect a President of one party and a Congress of the other, which seemed to me to prevent Presidents from actually doing anything of significance. I always knew that the reason was it prevented Presidents from doing major damage, but I felt that that was much less likely. Well, I got what I always wanted, and couldn;t have been more wrong. I now long for the play it safe days of political gridlock. I still think that there is more likely that control of the Houses and the WH would be more likely to accomplish great things rather than disastrous things, and that it was just bad luck that it happened to be Bush who got the freedom, but I now concede that the potential downside greatly outweighs the possible upside. What I am wondering is this: How many of you are in similar circumstances? How many supported Bush and now regret it each and every day? I am interested in hearing that I am not alone in this. While I recognize that it's unlikely anyone here will own up to this, I also wonder how many here are now recognizing that their initial decision to support the invasion of Iraq was the wrong one. If you are out there and will admit this, I would be interested in what you have to say, and impressed with your integrity. Or do people have any other political chickens currently coming home to roost? Also interested. PEACE JAg
I voted for Nader in 2000 mostly because I didn't trust either Gore or Bush. I honestly couldn't tell their politics apart. I thought they were both tools for corporate interests, and both would serve those masters before the citizens who elected him. To me, Gore and Bush were the same candidate, just with different letters in front of their names. Looking back, though, I couldn't have been more wrong. Had I known then what Bush would do to our country, I would moved out of Texas, established residency in southern Florida, and campaigned my ass off for Gore. Yeah, Gore would have been a corporate tool, but it's REALLY hard to imagine Gore doing near the damage Bush has.
I also voted for Nader, with no expectation of him winning. I knew my vote, if it wasn't for Bush, wouldn't matter much in Texas and that I wouldn't be inadvertantly supporting Bush by voting for Nader. I don't now, and didn't then, think Nader would have made much of a president. But Bush and Gore, particularly Bush, struck me as, at the least, the same old corrupt politicos that pop up in every election. The only thing that's going to put the government back in a position (if it was ever truly there) where it's accountable for its actions and then acts accordingly is a complete transformation of the political culture - and end to the $1000-a-plate fundraisers and lobbyist luncheons and wall-to-wall lawyers. And the only way to change the culture is to change the type of people - and that requires someone who is neither Democrat nor Republican, at least. But now - now I just want Bush the hell out. No one running against him could possibly be as dangerous to the stability of the U.S. as Bush has been.
I voted for the socialist candidate. My vote was in NY at the time and Gore had the state locked up. Too bad that Bush ended up in the whitehouse. On a Gore personal level maybe losing was the best thing that could have happened to him. He's certainly been a much better speaker, and far less stiff etc. since then.
I voted for Nader in 2000, McCain in the Republican primaries in 2000, and Ann Richards for governor versus all comers when I lived in Texas. My only regret is they all lost.
The "invasion of Iraq?" Don't you think Puerto Rico or The Disrict of Columbia should be allowed to be the 51st State before Iraq? They've been waiting longer... My restlessness is not focused on Bush. It is more about the macroscopics of politics. I don't like entrenched power (give me Term Limits, please). There isn't too much great difference between the two parties <b>once they get in office</b>. I'm more in sync with Republican stances but I am hugely disappointed in Republican fiscal irresponsibility. I won't say I have reversed my feelings on the Iraqi "operation," but I am weary of it. I wish we had put more boots on the ground and stormed the rats out. The US death toll would probably be smaller. Personally, I think the US went to Iraq because they knew how hard it would be to catch Osama. By keeping token pressure on him, they keep him on the run and practically out of touch with his merry band of terrorists. I figure the US is waiting for his resources to deplete or his body to give out. How many martyrs have died of kidney disease? Yeah, they can bomb a synagogue in Turkey but they haven't struck against the US again... yet anyway.
I also voted for Nader in Maryland, where Gore had it wrapped up. However, had I lived in one of the states that was up for grabs, I still would have voted for Nader. Knowing what I know now, I would have definitely voted for Gore.
Ralph Nader unfortunately put us all in the predicament. The sad thing is that (prefacing) George W is 90% likely to get re-ellected come November. We all have to leave and deal with it. I have both Conservative and Liberal values. But I dislike the right more often because I belive they are mostly heartless hypocrites. Their attack on Clinton sold me completely. I supported Al Gore for this reason (lesser of 2 evil). I never trusted George W - I could see through the tricks and lies. I cannot be fooled by him. Oh well I don't really care anymore. I am resigned to the fact he will get re-elected but I will be ELATED if that does not happen. Keeping my fingers crossed.
Hey, your man in the White House is letting a felon run around the West Wing. That's something to be proud of as well. Of course, what that person did is clearly against the law while there are legal questions regarding vote-swapping, it's not a clear-cut issue. http://slate.msn.com/id/92442/ Is Vote-Swapping Legal? By Jeremy Derfner Last week, Jamin Raskin, a law professor at American University, published an article in Slate proposing that Ralph Nader supporters who live in battleground states (such as Michigan) swap votes over the Internet with Al Gore supporters in states where the outcome of the election is an all-but-settled issue (such as Texas). That way, Nader could get the 5 percent of the popular vote he needs to secure federal matching funds for the Green Party in 2004 without tipping swing states to George W. Bush and costing Gore the electoral votes he needs to win. It turns out a technical writer from Washington, D.C., had already thought of the idea and launched Vote Exchange Oct. 1. A Wisconsin graduate student launched a second site, Nader Trader, the same day the Raskin article appeared. Since then, the idea has exploded. At least six other trading sites have gone up: Voteswap 2000, Nader's Traders, VoteExchange, votexchange2000, nadergore.org, and WinWin Campaign. The media has given the trading trend heavy coverage, driving hundreds of thousands of visitors to these sites. Nader Trader reports that it got more than 90,000 hits on Monday alone. It seems as if vote-trading is catching on everywhere. A Democratic club in Alabama has declared Minnesota its sister state and urged its members to seek out Minnesotan Naderites to trade with. Because of the closeness of the race and the importance of Nader's vote in closely contested states, Internet vote-swapping has the potential to transform the election. But on Monday night, Voteswap 2000, a Los Angeles-based site, shut down after its proprietors received notice from the California secretary of state that vote-trading violated state law. Votexchange 2000, based in Stanford, shut down shortly thereafter. But the other sites are up still and running. Raskin says they're doing nothing wrong; he argues that vote-trading is legal because politicians have always done it, establishing it as a normal part of the political process. So, is vote-trading legal or not? The answer depends on whom you ask, since the issue has yet to be adjudicated. When Vote-auction.com tried to sell votes over the Internet, it was easy to determine that the site was breaking the law; there was a clear off-line precedent. But before communications technology made organized vote-swapping possible, it was a nonexistent problem. The legal uncertainty is well expressed by a notice on one of the sites, VoteExchange: "Is what I will be doing with my partner legal?" the site asks. "Since this is your business, please consult your own legal counsel." Each state has its own statute about corrupt election practices, and there is also a federal statute pertaining to vote fraud. The federal law is very narrow. It says it is illegal to offer your vote for something of monetary value—money, a welfare voucher, or a TV set, for example. A vote, however, does not have a tangible monetary value, and according to a Justice Department spokeswoman, the department has determined that vote-trading does not violate the federal statute. But regulating elections is left to the states whenever possible, and the state statutes tend to provide broader definitions of corrupt practices. According to the California Elections Code, it is a crime to get "any money, gift, loan, or other valuable consideration" for "induc[ing] any other person to … vote or refrain from voting for any particular person or measure." Thus the legality of vote-swapping in California hinges on how the courts might define various terms—whether a vote counts as a "valuable consideration" and whether an offer to trade votes counts as an "inducement." The California secretary of state thinks they do, but a number of experts disagree. John Bonifaz, executive director of the nonpartisan National Voting Rights Institute, says vote-trading is protected by the First Amendment. Voting is political speech, and vote trading simply improves the quality of a vote, allowing voters to get "what they want with respect to their second choice as well as what they want with a third party," he argues. And then there is Raskin's argument that vote-trading is a time-honored tradition of legislatures at every level of government. Based on the federal statute, these familiar forms of log-rolling and pairing-off are clearly permitted. But it might be argued that under some state statutes, office holders who trade votes are breaking the law and simply avoiding prosecution. The great irony here may be how Nader the grass-roots candidate will be out-grass-rooted by his supporters. Nader criticizes the major parties for failing to offer voters a real choice, but his supporters do not necessarily like the impractical choice he offers either. So, without official sanction, or even their candidate's approval, they are trying to make a more complex choice. Update, Nov. 2: The National Voting Rights Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California will file a lawsuit later today on behalf of the proprietor of votexchange2000, one of the vote-trading sites that shut down after the California secretary of state threatened legal action. The plaintiffs, who hope to get an audience with a judge today or tomorrow, are seeking a temporary restraining order that would allow the sites to go live again without fear of prosecution.
That's a load of malarky. A person can vote for whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. It's part of being a democracy.
Yes, as long as you only vote once. The person who should be brought up on charges is Nadir, who made this ineffective (really... I can't believe a Republican would compain about that election) attempt at providing a means for Nadir fans to cast a vote against Bush that meant something... and many of them were more about supporting the Green Party as a 3rd party alternative than supporting Goofus. They had no idea that Bush would turn out to be the worst President of modern times.
I voted for Nader as well as I could not bring myself to vote for either of the major party candidates. That is not to say that I wanted Nader elected as the Green platform is way too socialist for my tastes. I also live in Texas (where a vote for Gore wouldn't have mattered) but regret not finding a vote swapper in Florida. I am encouraged by the people I call the "silent independants." These are people who vote religiously for whichever candidate seems right (or at least the lesser evil) at the time but do not have any particular preference regarding the right vs. left jihad so prevalent these days. These are also people who generally do not engage in the right vs. left debates and quarreling. Many of the independants that I talk to voted for Bush in 2000 and would rather shove bamboo shoots under their toenails than vote for him again. It is amazing how vocal some of my independant friends have gotten now that Bush has shown his true colors. Bush may have more of a run for his money in November than anyone suspects. I certainly hope so.
