Posts tagged ralph nader

My Vote for Nader, Vindicated

June 14, 2009 · Filed under Uncategorized · Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to AMERICAblog, Barack Obama’s legal team — likely on instructions from the White House — filed a motion to dismiss a legal challenge to the “Defense” of “Marriage” Act (DOMA). The full-length, fifty-four page rape of the Constitution and queer constituents can be found here. Among some of the claims the team makes are:

* Homosexuality is comparable to incest and pedophilia. Maybe if the Obama administration lawyers had a basic understanding of reality, they might comprehend that since children aren’t able to consent (unlike adults, the persons in question in same-sex marriage) the comparison to homosexuality is not a very good one. They might also understand the fact that incest has been scientifically linked to genetic problems in offspring, whereas homosexuality…not so much.

* DOMA is fine because it saves the federal government money. (Funny, I don’t recall that being a concern of the Obama administration.) Besides, aren’t our rights priceless? Or something? Maybe?

This shit goes on and on; I encourage every person who voted for Obama to read this in full and then seriously reconsider voting for him again. You can’t write this off as simply him doing “his best” for gay people in today’s political climate: this was a relatively minor proceeding (i.e. whether the case would be able to go to court or not) and Obama would have been perfectly capable of distancing himself from the actions of his legal team. Instead, he chose to aggressively seek out and destroy the rights of same-sex couples.

I was happy to see that a number of gay-rights groups, including the ACLU, GLAD, Lambda Legal, and HRC, among others, wrote a letter to the Obama administration complaining about his desertion of gay Americans. This shouldn’t be shocking to anyone who even vaguely recalls the Clinton administration. In fact, the Democratic Party has a strong tradition of trying to screw gay people, even though we’re way out of their league.

To me, the recent actions of the Obama administration, combined with his announced refusal to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell for a long time, are merely a vindication of my belief that an Obama White House wouldn’t mean anything for gay rights.

Barack Obama should be absolutely ashamed of himself.

Leave a comment »

In New Jersey, Not Much in the Way of Choice

November 1, 2008 · Filed under Commentariat, Election 2008, Internet, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article ran on the Commentariat, the opinion blog of the Columbia Spectator.

I decided to come home this weekend to spend some time with my family, see some friends from home, and vote. When I arrived last night, I saw my sample ballot waiting for me. I eagerly opened it up, but only to be disappointed.

This election day, I intended, with the exception of President and Congress (my congressman is pretty awesome), to vote a straight Green Party ticket. But I ran into a problem. The only Green candidate running was Cynthia McKinney, for President. For Sheriff and Board of Chosen Freeholders, the only candidates were Democrats and Republicans. In fact, for one of the Freeholder races (there are three), the Republicans didn’t even run a candidate.

I found this all profoundly disturbing, but I was not to be deterred. This morning, I began to research the various candidates, starting with those for US Senate.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (4) »

Ron Paul, Douchebag Extraordinaire

October 25, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Since I heard about him, I have disliked Ron Paul. His past — not even that long ago — indicates that he is homophobic, wildy racist, and anti-Semitic. His claims of libertarianism are belied by his opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, and gay rights generally.

EDIT: While Ron Paul claims that he doesn’t know who wrote those articles, they were published under his name, in his publication. Just as a magazine or a newspaper would have to take responsibility for the articles of those who write for it, so too is Ron Paul responsible for allowing the spread of hateful rhetoric and ignorance.

In fact, he says that he would have voted for the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act and proposed the Marriage Protection Act (scroll to the end) which would have prohibited litigation pertaining to either the Defense of Marriage Act or itself. I maintain that his douchebaggery is not lessened by his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, because he did so on the basis that it was too hard (“passing a constitutional amendment is a long,drawn-out process”) and that “liberal social engineers who wish to…redefine marriage will be able to point to the…amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter”.

In a Republican primary debate he sidestepped the issue of the injustice inherent in the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, saying that it’s a “decent policy”.

Lastly, he calls himself “strongly pro-life” and, in a sentence for which the term “logical clusterfuck” would be generous, he claims that “abortion leads to euthanasia”.

It should be no surprise, then, that he recently endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, a nutjob probably a step to the right of Strom Thurmond, and certified assclown. For those of you who don’t know, the Constitution Party claimsit wants to “uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States” by returning American to its its “original Biblical common-law foundations”, persecuting gays, and making everyone believe in Jesus. (These are all quotes from their mission statement.)

This, sadly, only vindicates by original belief that Ron Paul is, was, and always will be an unrepentant racist, homophobic, hatemonger.

EDIT: For those who are unable to find the quotations to which I refer in the sources provided at first glance, please peruse the articles and speeches carefully and you will discover exactly that to which I refer. Thank you.

Note: both edits were done at 6:45 PM EST on Oct 26.

Comments (8) »

The Nader Effect and 2008

October 21, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008, LGBT Issues, Poll Analysis · Tagged , , , , , , ,

According to RealClearPolitics, Barack Obama has an 8.7 percent lead over John McCain. However, this is only when Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are included in the polling data. When third party candidates are excluded, however, Obama’s lead shrinks to 6.8%. There are a variety of explanations for this.

One of these explanations is simply that Bob Barr simply siphons off voters who would otherwise be voting for McCain. However, this, at least by itself, is entirely inadequate. In fact, in a partial restoration of my faith in the American people, only 1% of Americans are projected to vote for him. Nader, meanwhile, is polling at 3%. If we accept political science orthodoxy that a third-party candidate will only draw votes away from the candidate closest in ideology to them, then Obama should be ahead by around 10.7%.

I got this number by adding the 3% of Nader, which would theoretically go to Obama, and subtracting the Barr’s 1%, which would theoretically go to McCain. Whille the Libertarian Party shares views with both major parties (it is socially liberal and [very] economically conservative), this year’s candidate is ultraconservative Bob Barr of Georgia, known for his both his economically and socially conservative douchebaggery during his time in the House of Representatives (for example, he both authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act. He also proposed to ban the practice of Wicca in the military and wants to repeal the 16th amendment [which instituted the income tax]).

An alternative explanation is that there are simply fewer polls, which leads to less accurate overall statistics. The problem with this, however, is that a sheer number of polls will not ensure statistical integrity. In fact, the sample sizes of most of these polls have been around 1000 likely voters. With sample sizes like this, it is rather unlikely that the margin of error will be particularly large.

On the other hand, the accuracy provided by the sample sizes might be offset by the varying definitions used for “likely voter”. Gallup has experimented with using two different designs for its “likely voter” polls. The results of one experimental poll were as follows. Among “registered voters”, Obama led McCain by 11 points. Among the traditional definition of likely voters (that is, it takes into consideration “voting intention and self-reported past voting behavior”), Obama was in the lead by 7 points. Among the expanded definition of likely voters (people who claim they will vote on election day), Obama was in the lead by 10 points. There is a problem with the assertion that the “likely voters” model is less accurate. For the registered voters in this poll, the MoE is ±2%; for the traditional LV model the MoE is ±3%; for the expanded LV model, the MoE is ±2%. In other words, the margin of error is essentially the same, but the likely voter interview is more likely to predict the outcome of the election.

Another reason to believe that the inclusive polling (i.e. with Obama, McCain, Nader, and Barr) is accurate is that it has followed the same pattern as the McCain v. Obama polling, yet only slightly delayed (because there are simply fewer inclusive polls).

The explanation that I find most credible is that Nader voters are simply people who might not otherwise vote this year. Obama’s numbers are essentially the same across the two polling methods (49.0% average in the inclusive polling versus 50.1% in non-inclusive). In fact, if you add up Obama’s and McCain’s numbers in the non-inclusive polling, there’s a missing 6.7% (presumably, “undecideds”). Given that Obama’s numbers stay the same across the polling data, yet his lead only grows when Nader and Barr are included, my hypothesis is this: while some McCain voters are willing to bite and vote for Bob Barr (either because they don’t like McCain’s social conservativism are are, in fact, libertarians, or because they don’t think he’s socially conservative enough and are simply fans of Bob Barr), Obama voters are committed to their candidate. This argument is justified by polling data which indicates that Democrats are far more excited about Obama than Republicans are about McCain. At the same time, the 6.7% of unlikely voters will split between Nader and Obama for two reasons. First, because CBS polling indicates that undecideds and independents favor Obama by wide margins. Second, because many Nader supporters have said that they simply wouldn’t vote if he weren’t on the ticket.

Leave a comment »

Ralph Nader

September 15, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008, Health, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , , , ,

Over the past weeks/months I’ve been thinking a lot about Ralph Nader and his candidacy. The following is an essay I wrote when I was really pissed off at the Democratic Party, and had momentarily forgotten that the Republican Party exists and pisses me off even more. Basically, do not necessarily take the following post as an indication that I will actually be voting for Ralph Nader but rather as part of an inner dialogue and my personal decision-making process.

At the time of writing this preface, my actual vote is probably for Barack Obama, but I am not entirely sure quite yet. My vote will depend on the following factors: (1) how much I hate Sarah Palin/John McCain/The Republican Party on election day/whenever I send in my absentee ballot; (2) how frustrated I am feeling with the Democratic Party; (3) whether or not I actually get an absentee ballot/whether it gets here on time.

Fellow Columbians, I have something to confess: this November, I will probably not be voting for Barack Obama. I will, instead, be voting for Ralph Nader.

I suffer no delusions about Nader’s candidacy. He will not become president, nor will anyone like him, not in this decade, not in the next decade. But then, viability is not why I am supporting him.

Throughout my entire life, I have been a committed Democrat. In 2000, I volunteered, along with my parents, for Al Gore. In 2002, I participated in a telethon for my representative in the House (Rush Holt, a Democrat). In 2004, I was a Deaniac, but when Kerry won, I supported him too. In 2004, I was one of the first to see where Obama was heading, and when he declared his candidacy, I was one of the first to support him. As I gradually learned more, however, I began to support Edwards, and traveled to New Hampshire to intern for him.

For a long time, I believed in the vision of America that the Democrats put forth. And, to be honest, I still do. But as I approach a decade of political consciousness, I have come to the realization that what the Democratic Party envisions and what the Democratic Party will fight for can be two entirely different things.

The Democratic Party envisions an America where all persons are equal before the eyes of the law. Yet, of the Democratic field this year, only two candidates – Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel – supported my right to marry whomever I please, regardless of whether or not the person whom I love have girly-parts or boy cooties. Instead, I heard platitudes like Obama’s position. That is, if I’m a good little boy, some day I might even get to have a civil union with the person I love. But of course, marriage should be left up to the states, since that worked so well for interracial marriage, integration and slavery.

As excited as I am about asking someone the ever-so-romantic question, “will you civil union me?” or “will you be my domestic partner in the eyes of the law?” I remain skeptical of commitment of Barack Obama, or indeed the Democratic Party at large, to my right to marry, or indeed my basic rights as a human being, when they espouse a plank nearly identical to that of John McCain.

Of course, my concern for my rights as a human being are second only to my concern for the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance. And I could probably bring myself to vote for Obama if he supported what the Democratic Party includes in its ideal America: an America where no one has to choose between healthcare and childcare.

But of course Barack Obama and the Democratic Party daren’t actually propose a single-payer healthcare system which would actually realize a fair and just means of distributing medicine and treatment in this country. Instead, the effective result would simply be required health insurance for all.

Now, of course, dear reader, you will say, “but if the Democratic Party advocates things like gay marriage and actual universal healthcare they won’t win!” Perhaps you have a point. But I have to disagree. If there is anything to learn from Bill Clinton’s candidacy – which can only be described as a sacking and pillaging of anything resembling actual principles in the Democratic Party – it’s this: it’s not how big your plank is that matters, it’s how you use it.

In 2000, and again in 2004, the Democratic Party nominated candidates with platforms almost identical to that of Bill Clinton. If triangulation and centrism were, in and of itself, a winning strategy, there would have been a Democratic chief executive at some point in the past eight years. But the fact of the matter is this: having actual progressive principles can’t hurt you. What can hurt you are things like running a horrible campaign and speaking like a zombie, which is exactly what Al Gore and John Kerry did. And, of course, they lost.

So, because the national Democratic Party no longer fights for its vision of an America governed by fairness in social matters and compassion in economy; because my party has reneged on its fundamental beliefs in civil rights for all persons; until my party again deems it necessary to fight for a living wage or economic decency; and because the my party does not now see fit to fight to maintain my civil liberties, I have, after much inner struggle, resolved to vote for Ralph Nader.

Comments (7) »

Ralph Nader, est. 1964

April 14, 2008 · Filed under Election 2008 · Tagged ,

So Ralph Nader announced that he intends to run for President. Again. I’m honestly not sure how I feel about this. It’s possible that he tossed the election to the Republicans in 2000, I suppose, if you don’t count the massive fraud, the intervention of the Supreme Court, and any variety of other things. And he certainly wasn’t responsible for 2004.

By all accounts, Nader should be my guy. He has a record of taking on corporate interests. He stands for a living wage, gay rights (/including/ same-sex marriage), ethics reform, and real single-payer universal healthcare. He wants to repeal Taft-Hartley, end the treatment of corporations as people, and actually give third-party and independent candidates a place in national debates. These are all things I believe in and about which I am extremely passionate.

I had been hoping that he wouldn’t run so I wouldn’t have to make this decision, but he is running now, and I’m at a crossroads. There are, essentially, two possibilities for the Democrats now: Obama or Hillary.

I’m not sure if I trust Obama. His platform is vague, he’s not willing to support universal healthcare (not even the watered-down Hillary proposal), and his lack of experience makes me wonder if he’ll be able to get things done, regardless of his commitment to progressive policies. Or, even beyond that, whether the Republicans will try to pull a Gingrich on him and bog him down in procedure, making him incapable of dealing with threats facing the country as a whole.

On the other hand, there’s Hillary. I’ve already outlined why I can’t stand her, her husband, and everything for which they stand. They represent triangulation, the compromise of fundamental beliefs, and dragging the Democratic Party to the center.

And yet, when I think about the alternatives, John McCain or Mike Huckabee, I shudder. Leave same-sex marriage to the states, John? Seriously? And, Mike, you honestly want to quarantine people with AIDS? Don’t even get me started on Huckabee’s tax plan. It’s just insane.

But how can I, in good conscience, vote for someone who doesn’t believe that I deserve the same rights as the person sitting next to me, just because of who I love? How can I, in good conscience, vote for someone who I /don’t believe/ would be the best choice for President?

At the same time, is it be selfish for me to vote my conscience if that means that someone I think would be even worse as President gets the job? There are real people who will be affected. Another Republican means more conservative Supreme Court justices.

I don’t have an answer. The best I’ve got right now is this: I’ll see. If the race swings widely either way, I’ll vote my conscience. But if my one vote could make the difference between a Democrat and a Republican, you can bet your boots I’m voting blue.

At least for now.

Comments (1) »