Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Two Troubling Election Arguments

By Robert Parry
October 29, 2008

Eight years ago in the Bush-Gore race, there were two election arguments that I heard often that now have resurfaced in the Obama-McCain contest as reasons to vote for third-party candidates.

Read on.


J. Michael Springmann said...

I don't buy the argument you advance on why we should vote for Barracks Alabama, the Dumbocraps Great White Hope. If that branch of the Permanent Ruling Party really wanted to distinguish itself from the Rapeuglycans, they would have backed Ross Perot or Ralph Nader or a dead dog.

Again, there is no real difference between the evil candidates advanced by the Permanent Ruling Party. Mad Dog McCain wants to bomb Iran and supports the status quo, even the outrageous bailout of the capitalist pigs on Wall Street. Obama wants to bomb Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Russia. His advisers include the Wall Street scum who helped bring about the current mess, whatever it might eventually prove to be. Zbig Brzezinski, who helped create the Iraq wars and the Visas for Terrorists Program, advises Obama on foreign policy.

Both of those maniacs support the illegitimate & terrorist State of Israel and its efforts to destroy The Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, & Iran.

I'm voting for Nader.

Mike Springmann

Anonymous said...

Funny that Gore blamed Clinton's behavior for his 2000 defeat and Clinton blamed Gore's failure to run on Clinton's recoird or to use him in the campaign when they had their well documented Whiter House shouting match after the 2000 election. Maybe you were out of town, but Nader voters voted for what they wanted and Gore refused to provide. The Democrats had only themselves to blame and they knew it.

Anonymous said...

Robert Parry presents three blatant fallacies: (1)that voting for Nader in one-sided states is "leaving it up to others" to avoid a catastrophic outcome, when a Nader vote large enough in those states to tip the electoral vote to the "catastrophe" would represent a triumph for the left and the start of a meaningful opposition to the bicephalous capitalist establishment; (2) that the 2000 election was in fact tipped by Nader voters when the determination of the Repugnicons to steal that election was so strong that even if every Nader voter in Florida had tried to vote for Gore the Repugnicons could and would have just disqualified and stolen that many more votes and the Dumbocraps would have capitulated just as readily; and (3) that Nader votes would deprive the Dumbocrap of a plurality when in fact the result would show the "anti-catastrophe" vote to be just as majoritarian but much more vigorous and resolute. In sum, only when there is a powerful left alternative will the Dumbocrats hesitate even a minute before they capitulate out of "national solidarity" with their Repugnicon brethren, just as they did in 2000-2001.

fact checker said...

There's another argument for voting for a third party.

Many citizens are fed up with both major political parties and will choose to cast their vote for the Green Party (or another party), in the hope of a 3rd party reaching the required percentage of the total popular vote that would allow public financing in the next election to a third party candidate.

Not only would the 3rd party candidate be eligible for public financing, but the Commission on Presidential Debates would have a tough time shutting out the 3rd party candidate from the debates if they received public financing.

Mr. Parry, perhaps you don't understand that it's not about "political purity" for some people, but more about sending a message to both Republican and Democratic national parties, that many Americans are fed up with them. They pay no attention to petitions, letters, emails, phone calls, demonstrations, anti-war rallies, etc.

Perhaps a wake-up call is in order for the Dems and the Repubs.

Anonymous said...

Nice try, Robert, but where in the Constitution does it say voters are charged with blocking the disastrous candidate from winning? If we had Satan and The Grinch as major party candidates, would you be asking us to vote for one of them because the other is so much worse? Where does this stop? Where is the positive energy? Where in your formulation is the incentive for parties to put up talented statesman (and stateswomen) as candidates?

Just as winning the rat race still leaves you a rat, voting for an unacceptable candidate just because he's more electable or less disastrous than the others leaves you a traitor to the values of America.

Only when the vast majority of voters support the candidates who best represent their values and points of view will America get out of this no-win pattern and start electing a new breed of leaders we can feel good about following.

Otherwise, you might get candidates like the runner-up for Miss Alaska. Ugh!

j o e l y said...

If I trusted the vote counting, I'd vote for a third party candidate; that's because I live in Dark Blue California.

But the way the election was stolen in 2004 (and of course, 2000) caused me to vote for Obama. Why make it easier to steal this one too?

Also, the "no real difference" argument doesn't ring completely true for me. But if Obama is elected, I won't be celebrating; I'll be organizing.

Anonymous said...

Robert, you just don't get it. Your absolute determination to set aside the election fraud of 2000, 2004, and what is going on right now, is a new standard for being obtuse - - or, as many suspect, do you have another agenda, perhaps paid mouth piece for the CIA? Right now I do not care - - you have passed up volumes of evidence - - that even leading scholars have replicated in their studies. So I give up on you, my friend. You are no longer on my favorites list and I have visited your Web sit for the last time. I have been patient, but I have over looked enough behavior that clearly suggests you are not on American's side and could care less about election fraud. Good riddens!

Anonymous said...

do you have another agenda, perhaps paid mouth piece for the CIA?

C'mon, what's that?

I don't agree with Parry on this one either but your comments are really insulting.


Mark said...

Oh Robert, your in a bind here, right. Here's the deal brother, there's never going to be a good time for a third party and it's not going to be pretty. It's not for the weak at heart. Funny when all that's happened; we seem to say, when are people going to revolt? There's been plenty of tragedies and pure corruption, no media truth, and no revolt. BUT that's what you do -fill the void in the media. All these last months have gone by and no coverage of third parties, not even's the bind your in, not covering it and then you felt compelled to do a 'reply' in your column. Our world is in grave danger, where truth is not known to most. For me Nader is truth, its' the way he's lived his life. _Mg

fact checker said...

One other thing...

As I noted earlier, the Dem and the Repub elected officials have thumbed their collective noses at the electorate.

They ignore petitions, letters, calls, emails, demonstrations, rallies, etc.

So, what do We, the People have left in our quiver?

The ballot box! A damned good reason to try to grow a THIRD PARTY.

Obama is no different than the rest of 'em, except that he's slicker -- and packaged better -- than any other politician to come down the pike in recent years.

Oh, and Mr. about looking into the allegations published in WaPo about Obama allowing untraceable contributions to his campaign?

There was a time when journalists covered important allegations such as that!

Anonymous said...

I also disagree with the Parry argument. For the first time in my life I'm voting for a third-party candidate. Read Matt Gonzalez's assessment of Obama posted on Counterpunch to find all the reasons why voting for Obama isn't an option for many of us. I submit that all those holding their noses and voting for Obama as the lesser of two evils are foisting on Nader voters the responsibility of being the conscience of American society and compensating for all those who gave a free pass to Obama during his campaign. Oftentimes, after being subjected to a monstrously abusive man, she will settle for someone else who is merely an improvement, although still abusive. Just because Obama would be an improvement over Bush and much better than McCain, he doesn't represent the revolutionary changes that the current conditions of the world demand. Obama blithely wrote off many of his supporters when he voted for telecom immunity, writing to us that he understood and accepted if that was a "deal-breaker." He voted in favor of the bailout. He does not denounce the illegal wars against and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not apologize for Obama's inability to inspire confidence in me, nor will I have any reason to aplogize for voting my conscience and demanding that we move toward a democracy in this country rather than ever-closer to corporatism, i.e. fascism.

Anonymous said...

I very much prefer Obama to McCain even though I realize that a Republican could stand up to business interests if he wanted to far more successfully than a Democrat. Nevertheless, I am toying of voting third party if safe to do so. Since there is computer theft, I yet don’t know when it is safe to vote third party in Pennsylvania.

The world has two many one party states. Sadly the more moderate Republicans seem to have it worse. Stevens of Alaska may not be there because he guessed wrong about what shady records was just inside the law and what wasn’t. For opposition so far we are only assured a few nutsy Republicans and one Socialist Sanders in the US Congress. If I can stop fearing computer theft what happens next, is far more important than what percentage Obama wins by.

Obama stood firmly against the death-squad government in Columbia in the last debate when McCain was claiming that we badly need Columbia to stand up to Venezuela, and searching the internet did this on many other occasions. I hope it has something to do with how he deals with Israel and Palestine, but it certainly will affect Cuba. I am impressed by the way both Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney speak out against the Cuban embargo and the execution of Troy Davis while Nader causally says how pure he is, Googling back to 2002, before he even mentions Cuba. Bob Barr changes people’s hearts and minds, creating a new American spirit, and Cynthia McKinney is recreating a real poor people’s movement, something the country again desperately needs.

So I am a very educated undecided voter, but I can clearly decide that I don’t like Robert Parry’s point of view when it comes to this election.


Anonymous said...

Did ya ever notice the folks who say "voting for a third party is wasting your vote" are usually from one of the two corporate owned political parties??? Looks like Mr. Parry is from that school of thought.