Log in

No account? Create an account

Nader for president!!

« previous entry | next entry »
Feb. 24th, 2004 | 11:34 am

SO Ralph Nader is running for Presdient again. All the Democrats are mad. All the Republicans are happy.

Its funny, his candidacy is probably being opposed mostly by people who agree with what he stands for. Liberals. Now they know what it was like being a Republican in 1992 and 96.

1992 About 2/3s of the people who voted for Perot wouldda voted for Bush or Dole in those elections. The 1992 Results were CLinton 43%-Bush 37% and Perot 19%. In 1992, without Perot, it wouldda been really close between Bush and Clinton and we probably would have been talking about a "Michigan recount". According to my calculations from my first thesis idea, the popular vote woudl've gone Bush 50%- Clinton 49%, but the electoral college wouldda been Too CLose To Call b/c too many states like Michigan and Louisiana wouldda been too close to call.

As for 1996, it was Clinton 49%-DOle 41%-Perot 8%. without Perot, it probably wouldda been something like Clinton 52%-Dole 46%.

I think that Ralph Nader running for President is good for our Democratic Republic. He gives people another choice who don't like this new Democratic party that will do and say anythign just to get a few more votes and is beholdent to big corporations like the Republicans.

I like multiple choices and think that maybe it would be better if we had a runoff system where we had multiple candidates run, then if no one gets 50%+, have a runoff among the top 2 vote getters. The thing that scares me about that is that you could get 2 candidates that are real extremists on both sides. What if we had to choose between David Duke and a Jesse Jackson, for instance? A matchup like that makes the watered-down 2-Party system look appealing. Atleast you'd have to be kinda moderate in order to get support. France had a situaiton a few years ago when they had Jacques CHirac whos a center-right candidate against LePen (sp?) who was basically a neo-Nazi. I don't want a Neo-Nazi or a Communist running this country

President Bush: Some Disappointments But It Could Be Worse: I still plan on voting for Bush, b/c I think that National Security and NAtional Defense are the most important issues in 2004. Bush has done some dissapointing things on Domestic Policy. They are outlined behind the lj-cut.

1) Our balooning deficit. Bush has been spending on social programs like a drunken sailor to try to get more votes. If a Democrat was President, it would be worst. Haley Barbour said on "Hannity and Colmes", I think it was, that if the Democrats in Congress got all the spending increases that they wanted, we woudl have spent $1 trillion MORE than we did this year. We already have a $500 Billion + deficit as it is. The Democrats blame Bush's tax cuts for the big deficit, but the #s don't work out. His miniscule tax cut is $1.3 trillion over 11 years, so that's an avg of maybe a little more than $100 billion a year on tax cuts. The Democrats wanted to spend $1 trillion more this year. EVen without the tax cut, we'd be in a bad situation. And the tax cut is probably actually helping bring more income to the gov't since it brings people to spend more.

2) Values. Ok. I agree with him on this category in most instances, but he's been a little dissappointing here too.

First off, he's increasing the money being spent on the National Endowment of the Arts. The same people that sponsored projects like "Piss Christ" Why are our tax dollars being spent on art projects that offend the majority of Americans at this time, when all that can be funded privately? If people want art, they can help fund it through private donations. Its usually upper class people who go to those shows anyways. If they really want to see it, they can pay a little more for admission.

Second. THe Janet Jackson boob thing. When asked about it, he gave no opinion but said that "he was sleeping". I don't want a President that's "sleeping" while things are going on. Even if you were sleeping, it was shown on TV several times. That was such a dumb response, he shouldda said somethign like "The Super BOwl is supposed to be a family show and they should not be having performances like that for the half tim show". A response like that would've helped him so much with the soccer mom vote that don't want their kids seeing displays like that.

Bush is good on National Defense and foreign policy. Our foreign policy is finally being decided by the White House and the defense dept and not the United Nations. We have a President that does things that are in the best interest of Americans, for the most part, if you forget about his recent immigration initiative.

Sen. John Kerry. He waffles more than a waffle. And they're waffles. Its their job to waffle.

He doesn't take definite positions on anything. He missed votes on 2 very important issues in 2003. THe Partial Birth ABortion bill AND the Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare. SO we don't know where he stands on Partial Birth Abortion or Prescriptions for the elderly except what his rhetoric is.

And you cna't trust his rhetoric b/c he says one thing and does another. He says he's against gay marriages but he was one of only 14 Senators to vote against the "Defense of Marriage Act" which President Clinton signed in 1996. Kerry has voted against every military program which is being used today to fight the war on terrorism and tries to criticize Bush for not doing enough. He criticizes Bush for the War in Iraq, but he voted to authorize President Bush to start the war. Saying one thing and doing another. Bush, on the other hand, generally says something and sticks to it.

Kerry has also had a mediocre, at best, Senate career. I heard that in 20 years in the Senate, he's only sponsored about 18 bills or some rediculously low number like that. Sen. John McCain sponsors 18 bills everyday before lunch. He's [Kerry] also actually more liberal than Ted Kennedy according to groups who track that info. That takes work! He's a liberal in moderates' clothing. Most Americans want someone who is in the middle and maybe tilts a little to the right, politically.

Ralph Nader, on the other hand, has done alot as a Consumer Advocate. He's the reason why we have seat belts in our cars. He's trying to work to clean our air, which is something that we should do. I know a big thing he's fighting for now is to have congresspersons post their voting records on their web pages. A few like Republican Christopher Shays (CT) and Democrat Dianne Feinstein (CA) have done that. SO then we know what their voting record is straight-forwardly without any spin.

Kerry would probably never go on the O'Reilly Factor b/c Bill O'Reilly would never let him get away with saying one thing and doing another. He was even tough on BUsh when he asked him about his stance on the Death Penalty.

Ultimately, unless something really dramatic happen, I see Bush getting 51%, Kerry 46%, Nader 1-2% and Other Candidates 1-2% of the vote. Bush will win Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico, and maybe even Minnesota (first time it will go Repub since 1972) and Pennsylvania.

The above was respectfully stolen from Mr. nighthawkal's journal as I agree with what is being said here and it is very imformative.

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {1}


(no subject)

from: marrasyn
date: Feb. 24th, 2004 08:40 am (UTC)

Thanks for posting that... it was very interesting.

Reply | Thread