Reply #13: What did the "vote for Nader" strategy achieve?

[0rganism]

Outside ensuring the election of George Bush in 2000 and whoring the Green party to an opportunistic egomaniac who wasn't even in the Green party, I can't think of anything productive that came of it. But you obviously can.

You want evidence that only "moderates" have a shot at defeating republicans? Fine. Look no further than the 2004 primaries. How much support did Dennis Kucinich get? Hell, I supported Rep. Kucinich's run, I hit the streets for him in uber-liberal Portland, and how much of the vote did he end up getting in Oregon? 20 fucking percent, that's how much, and it's an order of magnitude better than he did nationally. Our un-moderate anti-war candidates never even had a chance in our own party primaries, let alone the general election.

Hey, if you think radical liberals can win at the presidential level, why don't you present some evidence? Tell me about a pacifist liberal who's won a presidential election in the last 80 years. So far, all I've seen from the not-a-dime's-worth corner is whining about abandoned principles, when the simple fact is that we were all outmaneuvered by Karl Rove, Kenny Blackwell, and millions of religious fanatics.

Which reminds me, the anti-abortion zealots used to piss and moan just like Frank is doing in this article. Well guess what? The anti-choicers held firm in 2004, supported the GOP candidate despite his obvious shortcomings and reticence on their core issues, and now they are starting to see some results. Watch and learn.