Reason #13: Hippies!

Jesus did in fact maje George Bush president...by voting for Nader

It turns out Jesus (or at least someone who looks a lot like Jesus)  really did make George Bush president…by voting for Ralph Nader in Florida

Idealists who are willing to split the vote on their side of the left/right political divide in close elections willingly hand victory over to the other side. Bush’s 2000 win and its subsequent parade of disasters represent their greatest folly, but they continue to spoil elections all over the country.

Some have learned their lesson, but many continue to insist that it wasn’t Nader’s fault and will stubbornly vote for him or someone even more esoteric.

Don’t vote for Nader, morons!

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

11 Responses to “Reason #13: Hippies!”

  1. Kimchi Says:

    Except that it wasn’t Nader’s fault. Assuming you are capable of doing some basic math, that should be easy enough to see.

    Almost 20% of registered Democrats in 2000 voted for Bush (7-8 million nationwide). 200,000 of these pro-Bush Democrats were in Florida (11-12% of all Florida Democrats). In Floridaa Nader’s total vote count was less than 100,000. Do the math. More Florida Democrats supported Bush then all other categories of Florida voters who supported Nader combined. And that’s not taking into account the blatant voter fraud and errors made in that state, or the fact that Gore’s campaign was so anemic he couldn’t even pick up his home state of Tennessee, or the Supreme Court’s decision. Nader was at best one out of multiple factors, and hardly the most significant.

    People like you blame Nader because it’s easier for you to find a scape-goat than to honestly examine your own agenda and the agenda of the Democratic Party.

    If you want us “hippies” to vote for Obama, why don’t you get him to actually stand up for the American people? Why don’t you get him to endorse a single-payer system of healthcare, a living wage adjusted for inflation, solar energy initiatives? Why don’t you get him to drop his support for coal power plants, his highly militant foreign policy, his support of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive invasion? Why don’t you get him to renounce his extremely dodgy career in the Senate, which includes support for the Patriot Act, the FISA bill, $300 billion worth of war appropriations, the confirmation of Condalezza Rice and the recent $700 billion bailout of Wall Street Crooks?

    So really, who’s the moron? The person who votes for the only candidate standing up for the working class? Or the person who marches along lock step to the hypnotic mantra of “change, hope, change, hope, change, hope” all the way off a cliff?

  2. sensorrhea Says:

    So your plan is to turn Obama into Nader? Then you’ll vote for him? That way Obama can go from winning the popular vote (at least) to instead getting Winona LaDuke-levels of support. Great plan, Moron!

    Your other prattling points are equally anemic when they don’t immediately self destruct.

    I can’t blame Nader because he wasn’t the only or even the biggest reason why Gore lost? Bullshit. I blame everyone from the telomerically challenged cottonheads who voted for Buchanan by accident to Al Gore himself for screwing up the legal challenges after the election. But this does not in any way absolve you, you deluded, self-righteous narcissist.

    A labored parable may prove useful: seven people each put one ingredient of a poison that requires all seven to be fatal into someone’s drink. They are all, of course, guilty of murder not because any one component was fully responsible but because if any one of them had not cooperated the victim would still be alive.

    I single out Nader voters because they are, as you so richly demonstrate, the most sanctimonious and unrepentant of the sad lot and because hindsight shows that Nader himself could have easily changed the result in Florida by bowing out a couple of weeks before the end and endorsing Gore.

    What the hell good did you accomplish by voting for Nader? You can’t think he’d ever win in this country, in that election or any other, can you? If so you are clearly insane, and this delightful exchange of views is over.

    But if you didn’t believe that, then I guess your principle must have been to vote your conscience, right? Vote for the best person even though they can’t win? In this case you are still wrong because it would be an unbelievably HUGE coincidence if Ralph Nader is your absolutely perfect choice for president out of everyone in the whole world. I mean if your vote has to be for the absolute mostest bestest ideal candidate, why not write in yourself? You have exactly the same chance of winning as Ralphie, which is none at all, yet your views necessarily align with your own even better than Nader’s do. Follow me?

    Or maybe your calculation was to somehow shore up the never ever EVER going to field a winning candidate Green party’s numbers to make some kind of insignificant point about protesting the establishment? Well, congratulations, you did accomplish that tiny little feat.

    Was it worth it?

    I mean, surely by now you can see that Nader’s simplistic rhetoric accusing Gore and Bush of being identical doesn’t stand up? Yes there are many unfortunate ways in which they are very similar and corporatized (as is Obama) but, tragically, there are other areas, some of them near and dear to the fucking Green Party, in which there is a contrast so stark even the politically blind like yourself should be able to tell light from shadow. The environment. Consumer protection. Supreme court nominees.

    God the list is really long, and if you can’t recite most of it from memory you have no business voting.

    Who, at last, is the moron? You. Not you alone, of course, but that’s cold comfort isn’t it?

  3. Kimchi Says:

    So your plan is to turn Obama into Nader? Then you’ll vote for him? That way Obama can go from winning the popular vote (at least) to instead getting Winona LaDuke-levels of support.

    Actually, most of Nader’s positions have wide-spread support amongst the American people. A majority of Americans and American physicians support single-payer healthcare, which Obama isn’t offering. Also, a majority of Americans want an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—something Obama also isn’t offering.

    The sad irony of the broken political system in this country is that position which are supported by a majority of the American people are marginalized.

    I can’t blame Nader because he wasn’t the only or even the biggest reason why Gore lost? Bullshit. I blame everyone from the telomerically challenged cottonheads who voted for Buchanan by accident to Al Gore himself for screwing up the legal challenges after the election. But this does not in any way absolve you, you deluded, self-righteous narcissist.

    You can go ahead and play the blame game if you want, but I don’t see how it’s actually going to help you or your party win. Likewise, you can continue to play the ad hominem, but it doesn’t really help your case. All it does is make you sound uneducated. Next time try making some arguments instead of just calling names.

    A labored parable may prove useful: seven people each put one ingredient of a poison that requires all seven to be fatal into someone’s drink. They are all, of course, guilty of murder not because any one component was fully responsible but because if any one of them had not cooperated the victim would still be alive.

    Your analogy fails for multiple reasons. First of all, not all of the ingredients are equally potent. A Supreme Court which essentially handed the election to Bush and tens of thousands of voters who were denied the right to cast their ballots are what lost Gore the election—not Nader. The numbers are simply against you on this one.

    More importantly, you ignore the fact none of this would have been poisonous had the victim been stronger. Gore couldn’t even pick up his home state of Tennessee—and had he done that, all the ballot-wankery in Florida couldn’t have stopped him from winning. As it was, Gore was a lousy candidate running a lousy campaign.

    What the hell good did you accomplish by voting for Nader? You can’t think he’d ever win in this country, in that election or any other, can you? If so you are clearly insane, and this delightful exchange of views is over.

    First of all, I have never voted for Nader before.

    Secondly, can you picture yourself saying this to somebody in the 19th century who is endorsing a third party anti-slavery candidate? Or an early 20th century voter endorsing a candidate for women’s rights?

    Nearly every major political and human rights challenge in this country started with third parties. Did any of those third parties win an election? No, but it kept their issues alive and on the table.

    But if you didn’t believe that, then I guess your principle must have been to vote your conscience, right? Vote for the best person even though they can’t win? In this case you are still wrong because it would be an unbelievably HUGE coincidence if Ralph Nader is your absolutely perfect choice for president out of everyone in the whole world. I mean if your vote has to be for the absolute mostest bestest ideal candidate, why not write in yourself? You have exactly the same chance of winning as Ralphie, which is none at all, yet your views necessarily align with your own even better than Nader’s do. Follow me?

    Follow you into self-contradiction, absurdity, and ad-hominem? I don’t think so.

    Given what Nader has done for this country, it is hardly a “coincidence” that I think he is the best candidate. Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Freedom of Information, food labeling, product warnings, seatbelts….show me what either Obama or McCain have done that even comes close to his accomplishments.

    And since we already established that I’m not voting for Nader because I think he will win, why propose voting for myself? You can’t even keep your argument straight for a single paragraph without contradicting yourself.

    I mean, surely by now you can see that Nader’s simplistic rhetoric accusing Gore and Bush of being identical doesn’t stand up? Yes there are many unfortunate ways in which they are very similar and corporatized (as is Obama) but, tragically, there are other areas, some of them near and dear to the fucking Green Party, in which there is a contrast so stark even the politically blind like yourself should be able to tell light from shadow. The environment. Consumer protection. Supreme court nominees.

    I didn’t vote for Nader in 2000. Your post is about the current election, is it not? Then stop whining about 2000.

    And it is you who are politically blind if you think Obama or the Democratic Party as a whole represent a substantial difference from the Republican Party on the environment, consumer protection, or supreme court nominees.

    The Environment? Obama supports offshore drilling, coal power, and nuclear power. His record on nuclear safety in Illinois should be troubling to anyone who cares to look it up.

    Consumer Protection? Homeowner protection? Obama’s VP is Joe “Credit Card Whore” Biden. Don’t make me laugh. And he, along with McCain and Biden, voted for the $700 billion bailout. Incidentally, this bailoutwas helping one of his (and McCain’s) biggest donors—Goldman Sachs.

    Supreme Court Justices? You mean like Scalia? Who won because multiple Democrats had no problem crossing the aisle and voting for him?

    Instead of calling me a “moron”, why don’t you look up the issues and debate me on these?

    I find it very ironic that you accuse me of being “self-righteous” when it is you who are so convinced that your position occupies the pinacle of reasoned discourse that anyone who disagrees must be “insane” or “a moron” or “has no business voting”. You are the self-righteous one, not I. Your views amount to little more than political bigotry, and there’s no point in continuing this exercise in futility. The issues speak for themselves.

  4. sensorrhea Says:

    Oh. You’re back. What a pleasure. 😦

    At least you write reasonably well.

    I must say, for a non-Nader voter you sure are an ardent advocate of them.

    To address a few things that range from somewhat to unbelievably wrong about your further comments:

    – America is a quite conservative country. It’s going to be a very long time before it can stomach concepts like single payer healthcare, and Ralph’s little ego-fest election stunts will have had almost nothing to do with it when it happens.

    – For better or worse we have a two party system. If Ralph wants to be heard he needs to run in the democratic primary. Surely if Ron Paul and Kucinich can be part of their respective primaries so can the prima donna.

    – Gore won the popular vote. He probably won Florida. Yes it would have been wonderful if the “patient had been stronger” but he wasn’t – though he was strong enough to pretty much win. Don’t expect too many landslides for a while in this weirdly 50/50 divided nation.

    -The Nader effect on in 2000 wasn’t the largest, but it was the most easily avoidable. If Nader had just dropped out there would have been no difference in how his message got out and had he endorsed Gore and sincerely asked for the Naderites to vote for him it almost certainly would have gotten a win for Gore.

    – As far as supreme court justices you conveniently conflate approval with selection. Failing to approve a president’s selection is an extremely complicated and constitutionally fraught act. Picking the justice in the first place, on the other hand, is what’ important, and Gore’s appointees would not have resembled Scalia and Roberts who were right off the buffet table created by the Federalist Society.

    – The 2000 election and all others since were too important to screw around with silly little “I really feel like I’m making a difference even though I’m not” 3rd party protests, and the results of 2000 have been so horrible that I’ll whine about it as much as I damned well please and for as long as I damned well please

    – You really think Obama/Gore/Kerry’s picks to head things like the EPA really would be equivalent to Bush’s? Seriously? So President “Earth in the Balance” is going to hire energy lobbyists to run agencies? Sorry, I jut don’t see it. Saying Gore & Bush are the same (or Obama and McCain) just misses too many obvious vital differences and is just an excuse to not vote or vote for someone insane and feel okay about it.

    – I’m still not sure where my reductio ad absurdum about writing in yourself falls down? I mean if the principle is to vote for the best person regardless of their chance to win (an argument made to me by Nader voters all the time) and to “vote your conscience” then can’t your conscience can pick a better candidate than Ralph? If not yourself then how about Santa Claus? I’m sure he’s for universal health care.

  5. Kimchi Says:

    I must say, for a non-Nader voter you sure are an ardent advocate of them.

    I vote for whomever I think will do the best job. Period. This time around I am voting for Nader. And I will defend the rights of his voters and all third party voters, because to tell these people to shut up (as you are doing in the crudest possible way) is essentially to tell them to stop exercising or restrict their first amendment right of speech, petition, and assembly.

    The mentality you have on display here is one of the principle reasons why third party candidates do not have a chance of winning. But democracy isn’t a horse race—the goal is not to “pick a winner”.

    America is a quite conservative country. It’s going to be a very long time before it can stomach concepts like single payer healthcare, and Ralph’s little ego-fest election stunts will have had almost nothing to do with it when it happens.

    There you go again with the ad-hominem—“egofest”? If Nader cared about his ego, he wouldn’t run. He would rest on his formidable laurels (which include all of the outstanding pieces of reform legislation I mentioned in my last response and more) and not risk becoming an object of ridicule for people like yourself. Instead, he is out there fighting the good fight. The man is old, and I’m quite sure, tired of fighting for people who just don’t seem to care. Yet he’s out there, persisting. His perpetual candidacy is the most self-less action in American politics.

    Anyway. America, a conservative country? Really? Who would’ve thought? Of course America is a conservative country. To go back to my earlier statement, it was a conservative country in the 19th century when it supported slavery and it was a conservative country in the early 1900s when it opposed women’s suffrage. How do you think reform happens? Because people like you just sit around and accept the status quo? Reform happens because people go out there and fight for change—real change, not just Obama’s mantra of change.

    For better or worse we have a two party system. If Ralph wants to be heard he needs to run in the democratic primary. Surely if Ron Paul and Kucinich can be part of their respective primaries so can the prima donna.

    I was a Kucinich supporter and I watched him get shut out of the debates hosted by his own party. His platform (which is quite similiar to Nader’s) is systematically ignored by his own party. What good has being part of the Democrats done for him or the issues he supports? The same could be said of Ron Paul—who, incidentally, has issued a statement urging his supporters to vote third party.

    The two party system is “for worse”, and it is not something that is written in stone. It’s not in the constitution that this is a two party state. Things do not have to be as they are—we can change them. Voting third party and supporting third party candidates who actually want to defend our constitution is an excellent way to start this process of change.

    And once again, third parties have existed throughout American history. Have they won an election? No. Has their persistence paid off in the end? The issues they supported are kept alive, and eventually become part of the mainstream agenda—but only because they and their supporters were willing to keep at it, and not be deterred by people willing to accept a seriously flawed status quo.

    Gore won the popular vote. He probably won Florida. Yes it would have been wonderful if the “patient had been stronger” but he wasn’t – though he was strong enough to pretty much win. Don’t expect too many landslides for a while in this weirdly 50/50 divided nation.

    My point exactly. Rather than blaming Nader, blame a broken system and the weak candidates it continually churns out.

    The Nader effect on in 2000 wasn’t the largest, but it was the most easily avoidable. If Nader had just dropped out there would have been no difference in how his message got out and had he endorsed Gore and sincerely asked for the Naderites to vote for him it almost certainly would have gotten a win for Gore.

    Why would he have done that? Why should he or any other candidate have to do that? Everyone in this country has the right to run for office. I might as well say that Gore cost Nader the election, and that Gore should have dropped out and told his supporters to endorse Nader. To claim that Nader should have dropped out is political bigotry, plain and simple.

    As far as supreme court justices you conveniently conflate approval with selection. Failing to approve a president’s selection is an extremely complicated and constitutionally fraught act.

    How so, given that Congress has been given the authority by the constitution to approve the Justices? It seems to me that failing to approve a President’s selection is the job of Congress, and is fully in line with the separation of powers our founding fathers envisioned. If there are bad Supreme Court Justices, it is the fault of Congress as much as the President.

    You really think Obama/Gore/Kerry’s picks to head things like the EPA really would be equivalent to Bush’s? Seriously?

    Absolutely. Why don’t you look at the facts instead of the sound-bite personality snapshots the media spoon-feeds you?

    Gore has only gone “green” recently and given his record I can only assume it is out of personal interest. In 1997 Gore championed the privatization of California’s National Oil Reserve by Occidental. This resulted in serious environmental damage, destruction to a sacred Indian burial ground and a huge windfall for his family stocks in (you guessed it) Occidental.

    As for this election, Obama is in pretty close with the ethanol people as well as the coal industries. Oh yeah, and now he supports offshore drilling. And given the inefficiency, expense, and destructive impact of ethanol and the blatant oxymoron of “clean coal”, I’d say that he’s not even marginally better than McCain.

    Saying Gore & Bush are the same (or Obama and McCain) just misses too many obvious vital differences and is just an excuse to not vote or vote for someone insane and feel okay about it.

    Look at Obama’s policies. He supports the Bush Doctrine, NAFTA, ethanol, coal and other dirty energy “alternatives”, continued government spying, fifty to sixty thousand troops (and countless contractors) stationed in Iraq indefinitely, a healthcare plan that is just as bad as the one currently in place, unquestioning and unyielding support for Israel and its war crimes….I could go on.

    There are minor differences between Obama and McCain. But not on any of the substantive issues.

    Therefore voting for Nader or another third party candidate is not “insane”. What’s insane is continuing to vote against your own interests, time and time again, simply because “for better or worse we have a two party system”. Your simple acceptance of the way things are is the real insanity. And if you are working class like me or even middle class and you vote for Obama or McCain, you are voting against your own interests. And that is insane.

    Eugene V. Debs, one of the greatest labor leaders in this country put it best when he said “It is better to vote for someone you believe in and lose then vote for someone you do not believe in and win, for surely that someone will betray you.

    I’m still not sure where my reductio ad absurdum about writing in yourself falls down?

    Your advice to vote for myself rather than Nader is not a reductio ad absurdum as much as it’s a non-sequiter pure and simple which is quite frankly not even worth responding to.

  6. sensorrhea Says:

    “I might as well say that Gore cost Nader the election”

    You might indeed say that, but I wouldn’t advise it because it’s one of the dumbest sophistries the unrepentant Nader voters have ever uttered. (How so? Well, do a little math for starters. If Gore had dropped out Nader would still have lost. If Nader had dropped out Gore would have won. The end.)

    In fact I think you’ve just revealed yourself: I accuse you, Kimchi, of being Ralph Nader himself! (“Kimchi” must be your secret service codename. Oh, wait, I don’t think you rate secret service…)

    What is my evidence?

    1. You used that dumb “Gore cost Nader the election” thing, which pretty much only Nader has the Chutzpah to say anymore
    2. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands
    3. You seem oblivious to just how much damage Bush has done to our country and our standing abroad, and how much of it would have been avoided with Gore
    4. You think the real differences between Obama and McCain, both as people and as collections of policies, are minor
    5. You are going to vote for Nader

    Q.E.D. You are Ralph Nader.

    Rather than continue to go point by point, Ralph, because we are clearly never going to agree on anything relating to this issue, I want to just come back to the question that you seem unable to grasp the relevance of. I think your failure to comprehend it reveals a lot about how you can shrug off ruining the whole world in 2000 and how you can continue to shoot yourself in the foot for the foreseeable future.

    (For the sake of argument, I’m going to assume, only temporarily, that you aren’t Ralph Nader for the rest of this.)

    You say “I vote for whomever I think will do the best job. Period.”

    Are you really trying to tell me that you think Ralph Nader is the ultimate best person in the whole country to elect? Really?

    Because, here’s the thing: he’s not going to win. Even you, an animate ramiken of fermented vegetables that somehow registered to vote, don’t believe he will win. This means you don’t need to take the likelihood of winning into account when choosing your special someone. So if we take away electability we can now choose among people who aren’t actually running. If you can’t find anyone better than Ralph Nader out of everyone in the country then you aren’t looking hard enough.

    If you stick with Nader then you must find the fact that Nader’s actually running for president to be a plus. This means that _even you_ have some level of pragmatism in your decision-making. (Hard to believe, I know.) This means you are willing to give up some amount of idealism in order to have a better chance of getting at least some of the things you believe in to happen.

    If this is true then you should be able to imagine extending that argument to vote for someone who might actually win, and who at least shares a few of your priorities instead of, and remember this as you vote for Nader, being violently hostile to every single one of them.

    Because whatever heroically vague historical influence you think you are being such a glorious part of will disappear forever into the nightmare maw of 4,8,12, maybe even 16 years of McCain/Palin supreme court nominees, vetoes, foreign policy, EPA chiefs, etc.

    You have free will and the all the rights and responsibilities granted you by the constitution of our democratic republic. I’m not trying to shut you up. I can’t shut you up (clearly), and I can’t make you vote for Obama.

    But I can sure as hell continue to dislike and ridicule you as you help the Republicans drive our country over one cliff after another.

  7. trendy Says:

    I’ve met Ralph Nader and he certainly seemed like a narcissist to me. Before 2000 he at least used his powers for good. Since then it seems like the narcissism has taken over.

  8. Kimchi Says:

    I’m Nader? Wow, that’s original. How very juvenile. Besides, if I were Nader my screen name would be “Hummus” not “Kimchi”. 😛

    Talking to you is clearly a waste of time, but I if you think the Democrats are going to save this country you are ignorant of their policies. Look at Obama’s policies. He’s supported billions of dollars worth of war appropriations, wants to keep 50,000-60,000 troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time, has stated he supports unilateral military action, kisses the ass of the Israeli lobby, and has more or less stated that he supports an invasion of Pakistan. This is all very well documented. Do you really think he is any different from McCain? Do you really think the Democrats, who voted for the bailout and voted continually to authorize this war offer any sort of alternative to the Republicans?

    I suggest you wake up, look past the talking points, and look at the voting records of the major candidates.

  9. sensorrhea Says:

    Juvenile? Have you not read this blog? My humor covers the bases, unlike Ralph Nader’s political positions.

    Since you have your own blog I’m surprised you keep wanting to have the last word even when you add nothing new to the conversation – which is a real waste of time. As is trying to convince me or any other rational liberal that McCain and Obama are equally bad picks. As is trying to convince me that voting for Nader accomplishes anything positive (aside from making you feel all sanctimonious and pure) – especially anything outweighing the obvious and terrifying negative of helping elect McCain/Palin.

    You keep picking issues with which you and Obama disagree. I’m sure if you think hard enough you can come up with a few that put you quite a bit closer to Barack than to Sarah.

    Your insistence on caricaturing McCain and Obama by cherry picking issues and ignoring differences may make you feel better about your quixotic voting strategy, but it’s just a fact that if you are liberal then Obama/Biden represents a vast improvement in a number of important areas over a potential McCain/Palin scorched earth future. Appointments to the supreme court especially. Or have you not noticed what’s been happening to them over the last 8 years?

    Meanwhile your vote, caused by Nader-induced magical thinking about how a Green Party vote is somehow going to usher in universal health care, immediate and complete Iraq withdrawal, and a president deaf to the cries of AIPAC, will actually make your progressive dreams more and more remote.

    Enjoy telling your grandchildren what a fool you were.

    “Yep, I helped Empress Palin get elected! But at least I didn’t have to feel the horrible sting of compromise or pragmatism, so it was all worth it! Now back to the telescreen sweetie…”

  10. Kimchi Says:

    Humor? Your blog? 😛

    There’s no cherry picking here. I’ve mentioned serious, substantial issues: foreign policy, healthcare, and the economy. I don’t see serious differences between the candidates.

    You, on the other hand, keep making allusions to these great differences between the candidates, great improvements, yet you do nothing to elaborate on what these differences are.

  11. sensorrhea Says:

    (You see what I mean about the last word?)

    How are they different? I’ll provide a short list.

    This is not about where you and Obama differ on these things, it’s about your claims that McCain is the same or better than Obama on these things. (And keep in mind, president McCain likely means president Palin, who is an order of magnitude worse on all of these issues.)

    McCain is anti-abortion.

    Obama was against the war in Iraq and will withdraw sooner.

    Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich, cut them for the poor.

    Obama wants to provide a single-payer alternative to people who can’t or don’t want health insurance from their employer.

    Obama doesn’t want to privatize public schools.

    Obama wants to emphasize diplomacy in our foreign policy.

    Obama is an advocate for the poor, literally.

    Obama will support federal funding for stem cell research. (Won’t you enjoy bragging to your Parkinson’s suffering friends how cool you are for voting for Nader and how Obama and McCain are the same?!? Enjoy that.)

    Obama is younger and has a much better grasp of the modern world. McCain is still fighting Vietnam.

    Obama’s Supreme Court nominees will help offset the drastic rightward drift that has occurred during the Bush era.

    McCain will continue the Bush practice of hiring conservative activists and business lobbyists to run vital government departments.

    Obama is more thoughtful and smarter than McCain.

    There are more, of course, but the bottom line is that a president’s legacy, the areas he has the most control over, are mostly in the areas of foreign policy (including warfighting) and supreme court nominations. And in these two things Obama is clearly more sympathetic to the progressive agenda than McCain, not to mention Palin.

    And keep in mind as well that during the general election both sides tend to exaggerate their moderation to appeal to moderate swing voters. This means McCain is more conservative than he claims, and Obama is more liberal, so any margin of error is in favor of Obama being better than McCain.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: