Site search
sponsored by
News
I stopped following the presidential campaigns several weeks ago. Sure, I faithfully listen to NPR and occasionally tune in to the “Today” show (although the so-called morning show banter grates after about five minutes, after which I’m forced to turn off the TV for fear that my ears would start bleeding) and even glance over the headlines in The New York Times.
Most of the time, though, it seems that the vast majority of campaign-related news have dwindled to He Said/She Said accusations, with one side claiming moral and numerical victory over the other. Quite frankly, all this pointless vitriol is starting to bore me, and I suspect it does the media as well. Without a Gennifer Flowers-like scandal, reporters are resorting to writing articles about how the children of superdelegates are waging their own campaigns to get their parents to vote for their favored candidate.
Yawn.
One campaign that HAS attracted my attention, however, is that of Ralph Nader. Readers may remember my open letter to Mr. Nader several weeks ago asking him why he should choose to run now, so late in the campaign season. As in previous election cycles, Nader has chosen once again to formally announce a presidential bid well after many voters have already staked their futures on a particular candidate.
There’s still plenty of money available for the asking, but with less than 10 months to go before election day, it was awfully shortsighted of Nader to throw his hat into the ring now that many voters have less money in their pockets, especially with a recession in full swing.
On the other hand, you gotta hand it to the man: He’s tenacious. He’s enjoying the “honeymoon” period of his campaign, with media outlets from NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” to the CBS “Morning Show” to NBC’s “Meet the Press” giving him an opportunity to state his case to the American people. He should enjoy it as much as he can, for if history is any guide, he’ll be seeing fewer and fewer media opps available to him as we lurch closer to the November election and the national focus turns to the final two candidates duking it out for the chance to sit in the Oval Office for the next four years.
It’s a shame, really. I may have had doubts about Nader’s umpteenth bid for the White House, but I admire the man for trying yet again in the face of overwhelming odds and the inevitable backlash he’s already getting from misguided voters. Indeed, the latter should be the ones feeling shame for denying him the right to run for office.
Both in this election and that of 2004 and 2000, I heard more than I needed to hear from people who felt that Nader’s votes had “given” the White House to Bush, that he was the “spoiler” who should be held responsible for the Iraq War.
Well, I was one of those who voted for and supported Nader in 2004. I have yet to hear a truly cogent argument explaining to me in rational terms why someone who followed the rules should be considered a “spoiler.” Unlike many of you, I earned my citizenship. I wasn’t born into it by accident. I chose to become an American citizen and took the citizenship exam as well as the oath of loyalty to the United States and the Constitution. If that doesn’t allow me the privilege of voting for whomever I wish in the presidential election, I don’t know what would.
I have yet to understand the connection between my vote and the election of George W. Bush. I voted for Nader because I felt that he alone understood the needs of the American people, from the poor to the middle class. He alone addressed the issues in concrete terms rather than spouting platitudes aimed at attracting votes and corporate funding. He alone listens to the youth of today not as someone merely courting votes, but as someone who genuinely cares about our voice and what we have to say.
Since when did voting your conscience mean “throwing away your vote?” I thought throwing away your vote meant not voting at all. If a voter feels that neither of the candidates on offer by the two major political parties addresses her needs, then why shouldn’t she be free to vote for a third candidate? Why should she be forced to choose one of the bigger names simply because that name is the lesser of two evils? When did voting become such a political calculation rather than a way to express one’s support for particular issues? Is that what our so-called democracy has become?
I haven’t yet made my final decision as to whom I will vote for in November. I’m waiting to see what happens in Denver this summer. I’m not counting out Nader, though. He may be facing even more of an uphill battle now than ever before, but the man has a lot of great things to say. If he can hang in there through the election, he may still catch the eye of many looking for genuine change. There may be hope for him yet.
<i>Marjorie Asturias-Lochlaer is a freelance writer living in Grand Junction. Reach her at marjorie.asturias@gmail.com.</i>
Most of the time, though, it seems that the vast majority of campaign-related news have dwindled to He Said/She Said accusations, with one side claiming moral and numerical victory over the other. Quite frankly, all this pointless vitriol is starting to bore me, and I suspect it does the media as well. Without a Gennifer Flowers-like scandal, reporters are resorting to writing articles about how the children of superdelegates are waging their own campaigns to get their parents to vote for their favored candidate.
Yawn.
One campaign that HAS attracted my attention, however, is that of Ralph Nader. Readers may remember my open letter to Mr. Nader several weeks ago asking him why he should choose to run now, so late in the campaign season. As in previous election cycles, Nader has chosen once again to formally announce a presidential bid well after many voters have already staked their futures on a particular candidate.
There’s still plenty of money available for the asking, but with less than 10 months to go before election day, it was awfully shortsighted of Nader to throw his hat into the ring now that many voters have less money in their pockets, especially with a recession in full swing.
On the other hand, you gotta hand it to the man: He’s tenacious. He’s enjoying the “honeymoon” period of his campaign, with media outlets from NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” to the CBS “Morning Show” to NBC’s “Meet the Press” giving him an opportunity to state his case to the American people. He should enjoy it as much as he can, for if history is any guide, he’ll be seeing fewer and fewer media opps available to him as we lurch closer to the November election and the national focus turns to the final two candidates duking it out for the chance to sit in the Oval Office for the next four years.
It’s a shame, really. I may have had doubts about Nader’s umpteenth bid for the White House, but I admire the man for trying yet again in the face of overwhelming odds and the inevitable backlash he’s already getting from misguided voters. Indeed, the latter should be the ones feeling shame for denying him the right to run for office.
Both in this election and that of 2004 and 2000, I heard more than I needed to hear from people who felt that Nader’s votes had “given” the White House to Bush, that he was the “spoiler” who should be held responsible for the Iraq War.
Well, I was one of those who voted for and supported Nader in 2004. I have yet to hear a truly cogent argument explaining to me in rational terms why someone who followed the rules should be considered a “spoiler.” Unlike many of you, I earned my citizenship. I wasn’t born into it by accident. I chose to become an American citizen and took the citizenship exam as well as the oath of loyalty to the United States and the Constitution. If that doesn’t allow me the privilege of voting for whomever I wish in the presidential election, I don’t know what would.
I have yet to understand the connection between my vote and the election of George W. Bush. I voted for Nader because I felt that he alone understood the needs of the American people, from the poor to the middle class. He alone addressed the issues in concrete terms rather than spouting platitudes aimed at attracting votes and corporate funding. He alone listens to the youth of today not as someone merely courting votes, but as someone who genuinely cares about our voice and what we have to say.
Since when did voting your conscience mean “throwing away your vote?” I thought throwing away your vote meant not voting at all. If a voter feels that neither of the candidates on offer by the two major political parties addresses her needs, then why shouldn’t she be free to vote for a third candidate? Why should she be forced to choose one of the bigger names simply because that name is the lesser of two evils? When did voting become such a political calculation rather than a way to express one’s support for particular issues? Is that what our so-called democracy has become?
I haven’t yet made my final decision as to whom I will vote for in November. I’m waiting to see what happens in Denver this summer. I’m not counting out Nader, though. He may be facing even more of an uphill battle now than ever before, but the man has a lot of great things to say. If he can hang in there through the election, he may still catch the eye of many looking for genuine change. There may be hope for him yet.
<i>Marjorie Asturias-Lochlaer is a freelance writer living in Grand Junction. Reach her at marjorie.asturias@gmail.com.</i>
