Nader is running again? Big surprise.
Ralph Nader announced that he is running for President again. And all across the country little utterances of “yes” escaped thousands of Republican mouths.
A few days ago, I ran across an interview of Dan Savage on YouTube. Up until this past month, I had never read anything by Dan Savage although I had heard of him. I read his book “The Commitment” and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Then I watched whatever came up on a YouTube search of him. This one clip of an interview slightly unsettled me. Not because of the substance of what he said but how he said it.
So as you saw, the clip was largely about the 2006 Senate election for Pennsylvania. In that race, incumbent Sen. Rick Santorum (R) unsuccessfully tried to defend his seat from Bob Casey, Jr. (D). What Mr. Savage was responding to was the possibility of a third party candidate and what affect it would have on the election. Carl Romanelli from the Green Party was eventually removed from the ballot, but his presence on that ballot would have served to bleed votes primarily from democrat Bob Casey. This is a similar situation as the 2000 election where Ralph Nader’s run on the Green Party ticket cost Vice President Al Gore the election.
In a way that sounds so Ann Coulterish, Dan Savage said that Mr. Romanelli should be drug from the back of a truck until there was nothing left but the road. That sort of speech doesn’t win any points from me—unless it’s from Ann. j/k. But, he went on to say that anyone who voted third party was an idiot because the stakes were so high and that whatever problems democrats might have with Bob Casey, the emergence of a democrat controlled senate—and better yet—congress would be worth it. (Bob Casey would oppose legalizing same-sex marriage.)
He is absolutely correct when he says that voters need to think pragmatically when they go to vote. That although the candidate that they select may not be the best candidate for them, the best way to use a vote is to know how that vote can best help advance an agenda. Think about it. Sure that third party may better represent your interests, but there is a very slim possibility of them winning the election. In the cases of the 2000 Presidential election, and the 2006 Senate seat for Pennsylvania, a vote for a third party would harm a liberal/progressive/democrat’s chance of advancing their agenda.
So what does this have to do with Ralph Nader’s 2008 presidential run? Well, that remains to be seen. I can’t imagine him having such a terrible affect on the presidential run of whoever the democratic nominee is *Obama*. I think that the general electorate is divided into a two-party mentality and will either be in one camp or another. Even the left wing-nuts have got to realize that Nader can’t help them. Of course, I could totally be wrong and once the parties hold their respective conventions and decide who will represent them and after the first series of polls come out, it may be worth revisiting the Nader question. But again, honestly, I think this will be a Democrat/Republican slugfest with no third parties nipping at the heels this time.
If you are a careful reader of this blog, you may be thinking, “But you said that you were going to vote third party.” Yup. But not for the same reasons, really, that people voted for Ralph Nader or would have voted for Carl Romanelli. It’s true, the Libertarian Party does reflect similar positions that I hold but I’m not voting for them. I am fully aware that my vote is targeted against Republicans. If they lose, I’m okay with it and in a way, I’m expecting that. And don’t forget, I’ve reserved my right to change my mind.
A few days ago, I ran across an interview of Dan Savage on YouTube. Up until this past month, I had never read anything by Dan Savage although I had heard of him. I read his book “The Commitment” and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Then I watched whatever came up on a YouTube search of him. This one clip of an interview slightly unsettled me. Not because of the substance of what he said but how he said it.
So as you saw, the clip was largely about the 2006 Senate election for Pennsylvania. In that race, incumbent Sen. Rick Santorum (R) unsuccessfully tried to defend his seat from Bob Casey, Jr. (D). What Mr. Savage was responding to was the possibility of a third party candidate and what affect it would have on the election. Carl Romanelli from the Green Party was eventually removed from the ballot, but his presence on that ballot would have served to bleed votes primarily from democrat Bob Casey. This is a similar situation as the 2000 election where Ralph Nader’s run on the Green Party ticket cost Vice President Al Gore the election.
In a way that sounds so Ann Coulterish, Dan Savage said that Mr. Romanelli should be drug from the back of a truck until there was nothing left but the road. That sort of speech doesn’t win any points from me—unless it’s from Ann. j/k. But, he went on to say that anyone who voted third party was an idiot because the stakes were so high and that whatever problems democrats might have with Bob Casey, the emergence of a democrat controlled senate—and better yet—congress would be worth it. (Bob Casey would oppose legalizing same-sex marriage.)
He is absolutely correct when he says that voters need to think pragmatically when they go to vote. That although the candidate that they select may not be the best candidate for them, the best way to use a vote is to know how that vote can best help advance an agenda. Think about it. Sure that third party may better represent your interests, but there is a very slim possibility of them winning the election. In the cases of the 2000 Presidential election, and the 2006 Senate seat for Pennsylvania, a vote for a third party would harm a liberal/progressive/democrat’s chance of advancing their agenda.
So what does this have to do with Ralph Nader’s 2008 presidential run? Well, that remains to be seen. I can’t imagine him having such a terrible affect on the presidential run of whoever the democratic nominee is *Obama*. I think that the general electorate is divided into a two-party mentality and will either be in one camp or another. Even the left wing-nuts have got to realize that Nader can’t help them. Of course, I could totally be wrong and once the parties hold their respective conventions and decide who will represent them and after the first series of polls come out, it may be worth revisiting the Nader question. But again, honestly, I think this will be a Democrat/Republican slugfest with no third parties nipping at the heels this time.
If you are a careful reader of this blog, you may be thinking, “But you said that you were going to vote third party.” Yup. But not for the same reasons, really, that people voted for Ralph Nader or would have voted for Carl Romanelli. It’s true, the Libertarian Party does reflect similar positions that I hold but I’m not voting for them. I am fully aware that my vote is targeted against Republicans. If they lose, I’m okay with it and in a way, I’m expecting that. And don’t forget, I’ve reserved my right to change my mind.
Comments