Reply #35: I would prefer not rolling over as well

[jpgray]

But as long as there is *zero* chance of that happening, I prefer the slower, more sedate method. Again, there is always a chance the Democrats will roll back some of the wanton deregulation, whereas there is no chance that the Republicans will do so. If a progressive candidate had a chance at parity with the more corporate candidates, I would send money and vote for that candidate. The system at this point will not allow a progressive candidate to survive, so one must necessarily arrive in "corporate" clothing. Again, this will only happen with a Democratic candidate.

I would consider voting for Nader in any year but this one. This group is incredibly dangerous, and there will be no time to build a progressive majority in this country if it is ruined before we have the chance. In the past four Republican administrations, only the figureheads have changed. The "boys" have remained the same since Nixon's days. The choice in my opinion is exacerbate this mess until it becomes a disaster, with all the death and suffering that will accompany it, or slow things down with a Dem and hope for the best. I pick the latter, I suppose.

But Nader gave a great performance on Crossfire recently, and whatever I think of his personal choices (labor rights for his workers, investments, etc.), his politics are usually dead on and he is a valuable critic of the Bush administration, and a good voice from the left.