|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
It should
be known before reading this that it's a column I wrote a long time ago,
maybe a year ago since it's apparently before I was even registered to
vote. I wrote it before the election of course, but never posted it for
some unknown reason. That's why it's up well after the election but reads
as if it's a few months prior to it. Nader Wins Strike Endorsement
By Chris
But what made Chris put TheStrike's support (of one voter, yet to be registered) behind long-shot Independent candidate Ralph Nader? "Well, I agree with his positions pretty much across the board," Chris answered. "Ralph opposes over-emphasis on standardized tests in schools, school vouchers that widen the gap between the rich and the poor, and overall commercialization of the school system." So education is an important issue with you? "Oh, of course. It should be with everybody." But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Chris agrees with Nader's opposition of NAFTA and the WTO, opting instead for fair trade, environmental protection, labor rights, and consumer needs. "How could you possibly be for those things (NAFTA, WTO)? They're clearly in place to benefit corporate interests while putting the environment at risk. These things harm us long-term for short-term profits of a few fortunate individuals." And why else, you may ask. "You can't argue with his positions on taxation. He's for raising corporate taxes that have been on a steady decline for fifty years - currently 7.4% - despite pulling in millions, if not more, in profits each year. He's for taxing the wealthy more; making them pull their weight. Get their money out of offshore accounts and other tax shelters and pay their way. People say that protesting and demonstrating is unpatriotic. They say it shows that you 'hate America.' But hiding your money from Uncle Sam so that you don't pay into what greatly benefits you above others... that's the real unpatriotic act." OK, fine, we get it. You agree with his positions. Why couldn't you just say that to begin with? Don't answer that. But why such a long-shot when John Kerry has a realistic shot of beating George W. Bush? "It's a moral issue, really. I looked at Kerry's stances on the issues that matter to me, issues I feel are a kind of litmus test for politicians, and didn't like the results." What issues were those exactly? "The Patriot Act and NAFTA. Kerry was in favor of both, and I just can't put my support behind someone who favors those." Since we had already gotten his thoughts on NAFTA and desperately didn't want to go back down that road, we steered Chris towards the Patriot Act. For those of you who don't know, the Patriot Act is an important bill that aids our government in finding and apprehending terror suspects. Anyone who opposes the Patriot Act must be the opposite of a patriot and, in fact, a terrorist themselves. Duh! "Actually, no. While it may aid in catching suspects, it's a dangerous road to go down. Taking away the rights of U.S. citizens is undoing some of the basic principles this country was founded on. And for what? To feel a little safer? Ben Franklin once said, 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'" OK, so Kerry's not the candidate for you. Understood... But he's a democrat... "That may very well be what he calls himself, but it's not what I would call him. Based on his voting records, in favor of the Iraq war and the issues I've already discussed, I would consider him a conservative in a lot of ways. I hope that's not what the Democratic party has turned into, but if it is, this is where I get off." Alright, fine... But he at least has a shot of ousting Bush. Isn't that what you want above all else? "For a time, I thought it was. That's why I almost decided on John Kerry. But I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I didn't want to use my vote against someone rather than for someone else. That's not how I want to begin my voting history. I firmly believe in the ideals of Ralph Nader, so that's who I will vote for." A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. "A vote for Kerry is a vote for corporate interests, big money, and conservative politics. My vote for Nader, combined with the millions of others Nader will surely receive, will hopefully send a message to both John Kerry and the Democratic party. A message that says Ralph Nader wouldn't be necessary if you represented progressive America. They're alienating their base, and it has made candidates like Ralph Nader a necessity; made candidates like Ralph Nader the real opposing viewpoint." Dennis Kucinich. For a time you supported him. Why the change so late in the game?
"If Nader is considered a
long-shot, there's not even a term to describe how little a chance
Kucinich stands in this race. Besides, Ralph and Dennis are in agreement
on the major issues I have, and that's what I based most of my decision
on. Nader shares my thoughts on how the country should be run, and he has
a better chance of winning, slim as it may be." |
||
 |
TheStrike's
top official, Chris, has announced that its 2004 Presidential
candidate-of-choice is former consumer advocate Ralph Nader.